OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] Microsoft FUD on binary XML...

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Michael Champion wrote:
> So IMHO, interop is quite possible *if* there are a small
> number of widely supported serialization standards 
> and XML text is mandated as  the fallback in  content 
> negotiation protocols.
    Yes. It is important to point out that for any new 
protocols, XML should be considered to be the default 
encoding. The only exceptions, and there are always 
exceptions, would be applications like sending telemetry from 
Mars where every bit counts... (But, even in such cases, it 
would still be useful to have the XML support if only to 
assist in debugging during development...)

> Others (such as myself) are open to maybe 2-3 more for
> specialized environments where, for example, bandwidth must
> be optimized while processing minimized (wireless), parsing
> performance is critical but bandwidth is cheap (web
> services infrastructure), and maybe one more (perhaps
> ASN.1) for situations where you want to exchange
> objects/PSVI/XQuery data models and you can assume that
> both sides agree on the schema.
    Can you say more about why it might make sense to define 
new, non-ASN.1 binary encodings as you seem to refer to above?
ASN.1 PER is good at producing compact encodings and can be 
parsed very rapidly. Thus, it would seem to satisfy the needs 
you specify -- except that it does require that the schema be 
known by both sides. I'm not sure how you would get the 
tightest encoding and fastest parsing without relying on 
schema knowledge. Knowledge of the schema allows you to do 
things like remove field names from the bitstream and also 
allows you to optimize the parsing structures.
     I know that there have been a variety of suggestions for 
doing things like removing the need for endtags in XML by 
inserting field-length counts, using *zip functions to do 
compression, or sending data with built in dictionaries of 
strings used more than once... Is this the kind of thing 
you're talking about? Can you name some of that non-ASN.1 
candidates that you think should be seriously considered?

>>Joshua Allen wrote:
>>... some of the problems with these binary formats is that
>> they tended to evolve, and the new information embedded
>> in the binary stream is not always added in a way
>> that is most amenable to efficient parsing. ...
>Ahh, that has the ring of truth!  Thanks.
     The ASN.1 defined encodings have been in use for a very 
long time and are, I believe, unlikely to change any time 
soon... I believe you can consider them to be stable.

    bob wyman


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS