[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Bruin" <rbru03@esc.cam.ac.uk>
To: <cr88192@hotmail.com>
Cc: <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:29 AM
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] hello, new to list, thoughts
> Hi all,
>
> Have you looked into BinX regarding binary XML formats? As far as I can
> tell (and from only a brief knowledge of binx) your idea is fairly
> similar in purpose (maybe in implementation, but I don't know enough to
> say).
>
> Just thought I'd mention it in case it can help to prevent needless
> duplication of work,
>
I went and looked.
I will argue this on the grounds that binx is very different (in both design
and goals).
yes, it focuses on large datasets, however:
in itself it is not really a format;
it would not retain the ability to have "self descriptive" files;
it itself is based on schemas, wheras mine does not use schemas;
..
unless I found the wrong BinX...
mine still vague resembles it's heritige (riff), but that may be all but
lost here. it most closely tries to mirror textual xml.
in mine, namespaces are the preferred vehicle of identifying things, and
namespaces are divided as such to try to allow) a seperation of chosen
"format" (I am considering spec'ing some besides xml, eg, a mapping of a
generic dynamic-type heirarchy).
namespaces may be too complex a vehicle for many formats, so it is possible
to not use them (even though their weight still exists in the lib).
schemas are something I don't personally like, on the grounds that they have
to be written and attached to the files, and limit the raw extensibility of
the file (I prefer different approaches, eg, those use by xmpp for example).
schemas seem too formal imo, and not like something that would be
particularly helpful to someone writing an app (apart from maybe verifying
input or such).
oh well...
|
