- From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:49:19 -0400
- To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, www-tag@w3.org
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > >>My concern is that Binary XML is disruptive in another less positive >>sense. Part of the value of XML is its nearly universal interoperability. > > > That's an interesting "XML" then. Does it include XML 1.1? I'd argue that it doesn't. I personally was quite opposed to XML 1.1 for this very reason. > How are XML documents such as http://www.w3.org/2003/02/W3COrg.svgz and > binary XML different in this regard? I'd argue that this is the same text document, simply using a different encoding into bits. I generally don't worry about how the file system breaks up the chunks of the XML on the disk either, as long as I get all the right characters back in their proper order. It is to some extent a matter of degree. a .svgz or .xml.gz file is not an XML file. However, gzip doesn't really make the XML file that much harder to handle than getting the raw bytes. The algorithm for translating bytes into text just gets a little more complex. Most of the NOT XML proposals do a lot more than simply provide an alternate encoding for text. They're not nearly as interoperable or as lossless as gzip. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xian3/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596007647/cafeaulaitA/ref=nosim
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 20:49:20 UTC