[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Nov 19, 2003, at 2:12 AM, Bob Wyman wrote:
>>
> 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.
Generic DBMS and middleware (ahem, the payers of my salary) can't in
general efficiently know the schema of everything flowing in and out,
so requiring schema knowledge is a showstopper for me.
>
> 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?
>
Pretty much. There are a lot of interesting ideas in the papers
submitted to the W3C binary serialization workshop.
http://www.w3.org/2003/08/binary-interchange-workshop/Report#papers
I'd note in particular:
http://www.w3.org/2003/08/binary-interchange-workshop/09-Sosnoski-
position-paper.pdf
http://www.w3.org/2003/08/binary-interchange-workshop/20-ximpleware-
positionpaper-updated.htm
|
