Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 01:56:33PM +1000, cr88192 wrote:
> how about xml for xml-like data, but a lot of it?...
> eg: GB's of xml, representing things like arbitrary types of serialized
> objects, collections, ...
We do have some people in the W3C XML Binary Characterization WG who
have gigabytes / terabytes of data. Some of them were represented at
the public Workshop we held last year -- e.g. geoglogical surveys.
You might like to look at the Use Cases document  for some of the
needs that have come up, and also the first go at a list of properties
of binary encodings that one might measure.
> so, there could be 2 varieties:
> a flat serialized version, which could be simpler and used for read or
> write only access;
> a dynamic random-access version, which could be more complex, but would
> allow read/write access, and possibly tranactional stuff (the log likely
> being kept as a seperate file). something like a b-tree could make sense.
A b-tree isn't really an interchange format. W3C isn't in the business
of specifying what goes on inside a database or application in that way
really, only at the interoperability level (although DOM stretches that
a little, I admit!).
Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/