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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Why a "general" solution? (was: RE: [xml-dev] XML Binary Characterizatio

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Claude L Bullard wrote:
> The case is made for some applications using a binary.
> The case is not made for it being generalized.

	We should address the general issue of binary alternative in
order to:
	1. Ensure and encourage interop
	2. To allow capturing "best practices"
	2. Permit and encourage reuse of solutions
	3. Improve XML, XML Schema, etc.

	The highest priority should be to encourage interop. Today,
people who are driven to a binary format (for whatever reason) are
left to their own devices and have little guidance concerning the
quality of XML alternatives or what may be best practices for using
them. We can't prevent binary solutions from being used. What we
should do is whatever is necessary to ensure that those binary
solutions don't compromise interop.
	For instance, this thread has raised a number of issues or
dangers concerning binary formats. There is a concern that conversion
of floating types might cause damage or that signatures might be
invalidated on conversion to binary. Thus, what we need is a document
that can say things like: 
	1. Beware of certain type conversions. Watch for pattern
facets, etc. that may require preservation of lexical elements such as
leading and trailing zeros or leading "+". 
	2.  When handling a signed XML document or element, use
X.finfo, not X.fws, in order to ensure that it can be faithfully
reconstruction of the signed content."
	3. etc...

	It would be massively more useful if the current statements
such as: "Don't use an alternative since it might cause problem X."
were reworded to say: "If you use an alternative, ensure that X does
not occur." Capturing this guidance would be generally useful no
matter which binary format is used or even if the alternative format
is, like XML, text based.
	It should also be noted that if the XML community actually
faces seriously the issues of interop with alternatives, we might
discover or highlight some areas of XML that are underspecified or
that could be improved. For instance, providing an easier to use
mechanism for specifying which optional lexical elements of numberic
types need be preserved might improve XML interop independent of any
consideration of binary alternatives.

		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