Re: [xml-dev] Is it time for the binary XML permathread to start up agai

[Amelia A Lewis <amyzing@talsever.com>]

Heh.

For that matter, this past week also saw the publication (at IETF) of a variety of RFCs documenting an intersection of XML and ASN.1.  ASN.X is an XML schema language "semantically equivalent" to ASN.1 (RFC 4912).  It would be interesting to see if they've got a type system (if they do, it would be a first for the XML Schema world ... :-).  Even a type collection would potentially improve upon the WXS disaster.  Then there's Robust XML Encoding Rules (RXER), for XML instances that represent ASN.1 (or semantically equivalent ASN.X?) schemata.

Disclaimer: I haven't had a chance to read and review them.  Second disclaimer: ASN.1 is one of those things that I think of fondly, but never quite find a use for.

Still ... there are already libraries out there that can decode various ASN.1 encodings (BER, DER).  So this potentially overlaps (strongly? partially? not at all?) with EXI, except that ... well, there's already code available.  I doubt that there are schema validators available for RXER against ASN.X, but I doubt that it would be *terrifically* hard to extend existing validators.  Depends upon the formalism (if any) underlying ASN.X, I suppose.

See rfc-editor.org, RFCs in the range 4910 to 4914.

Amy!
On 2007-07-19 17:01:57 -0400 Guenter Obiltschnig <lists@appinf.com> wrote:

> <rant>
> Do we really need another binary XML standard? I mean, what's wrong  with 
> Fast Infoset for those who absolutely need binary XML? It's an  ITU standard, 
> it already has some implementations that have been  successfully 
> interop-tested, and it seems to workk reasonably well.  Haven't those guys at 
> all those WGs better things to do than to  reinvent the wheel?
> </rant>
> 
> So is anyone willing to enlighten us how exactly is EXI better than FI?
> 
> Günter
> 
> On Jul 19, 2007, at 11:52 , Michael Champion wrote:
> 
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-exi-20070716/ has been published; now  it's 
>> time for the rest of the world to take a look at what W3C has  come up with 
>> and evaluate whether it meets a real world need.   Elliotte Harold 
>> http://www.cafeconleche.org/oldnews/ news2007July18.html has the only post 
>> I have seen so far that  expressed an opinion: "The Efficient XML 
>> Interchange Format is  neither efficient nor XML nor interchangeable."
>> 
>> I'm particularly interested in thoughts on what the WG came up with  in the 
>> light of the TAG opinion http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ 
>> public-xml-binary/2005May/0000.html .  Specifically, how much of a 
>> performance / compresison gain would it take to outweight the  disruptive 
>> effects the TAG noted? It would be interesting to have  that discussion 
>> before the EXI WG publishes their report on how  much actual improvement 
>> they see for which scenarios.
>> 
>> For the record, Microsoft has expressed considerable skepticism  that a 
>> single efficient XML format could cover enough use cases  with sufficient 
>> improvement to justify a W3C Recommendation, but we  are waiting for the 
>> hard evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
> 
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
> 

-- 
Amelia A. Lewis                    amyzing {at} talsever.com
Did you exchange a walk-on part in the war for the lead role in a cage?
                -- Pink Floyd