[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Yes. I had never seen the term 'optimized xml'
> used before. I have seen 'binary'.
I've gotten into the (at least occasional) habit of using 'optimised'
instead of 'binary' because I don't think the WG should presume that the
solution -- if there is one -- necessarily relies on binarisation (even
if all tests I've seen thus far makes it look very likely).
> Let's see what happens if a packaged document
> set is wanted as well. That is quite likely.
I think there's a hard rule that optimised XML MUST NOT support any
feature that isn't supported by XML as well -- it's just optimisation.
If it were to do packaged documents, it would be by encoding an XML
expression of those.
One bit of going-to-get-started-with-any-luck work that is related to
packaged docs is the W3C Workshop on Web Applications and Compound
Documents:
http://www.w3.org/2004/04/webapps-cdf-ws/index.html
--
Robin Berjon
|
