[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> What you are proposing is a bullet aimed at
> the heart of XML.
This isn't even vaguely true. What I am proposing actually has
absolutely *nothing* to do with XML at all! As you correctly say: "All
data in an XML document is text." Thus, any discussion of something
other than text cannot be a discussion of XML. This is simple logic.
What I'm discussing is handling non-textual, non-XML data, in
a manner which is similar to the way that XML data is handled. The
hope is to show a bridge between the XML and non-XML worlds that
allows both to coexist, leverage each other's work, and maintain the
values which are important to each.
The reason I'm discussing this non-XML issue in this
XML-oriented forum is so that I can get the benefit of the XML
communities experience with handling structured data. Also, the hope
is to convince the "XML World" that it is neither necessary nor wise
for them to continue down the current path towards a "binary XML"
since there are already quite adequate binary encodings that provide
whatever benefits that a "binary XML" might offer. XML should stay
focused on the textual encoding issue. It should not expand out into
the realm of binary encodings. As you said: "There is no binary data
in XML. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada." This is as it should be. We
agree (I think...).
> The data model on which your SAD SAX API is based
> makes assumptions about XML that are not true for
> many people.
You are wrong. As pointed out above, what I'm suggesting has
nothing to do with XML. I assume that people processing XML data would
not use the "SAD" extensions. What I'm discussing is how to handle
non-XML data in a manner which has been proven to be useful after long
and extensive experience in the XML community. The hope is to share
the knowledge and experience gained in the XML world with others and
to enable a broader range of applications to exploit the XML toolset
in dealing with non-XML encodings. I can't see why this is a bad
thing. Can you please explain why this is bad?
bob wyman
|
