W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-expath@w3.org > November 2013

Re: Final draft of Proposed Binary Module

From: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:46:24 +0100
Message-ID: <5284F050.1040704@kosek.cz>
To: Michael Sokolov <sokolov@falutin.net>
CC: John Lumley <john@saxonica.com>, EXPath ML <public-expath@w3.org>
On 14.11.2013 11:35, Michael Sokolov wrote:
> I'm also curious why packing and unpacking functions aren't specified as
> taking/returning sequences of numbers.

Because xs:base64Binary is the primary type used for representing binary
values.

>  Is the idea that any conceivable
> optimizations can be achieved just as easily by mapping the functions or
> using them with function operators?

I'm note sure if I understand to you question. But xs:base64Binary is
just abstraction from the point of view of function signatures.
Reasonable implementations will store values of this type as arrays of
bytes without any additional overheads.

			Jirka

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
  Jirka Kosek      e-mail: jirka@kosek.cz      http://xmlguru.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------
       Professional XML consulting and training services
  DocBook customization, custom XSLT/XSL-FO document processing
------------------------------------------------------------------
 OASIS DocBook TC member, W3C Invited Expert, ISO JTC1/SC34 rep.
------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bringing you XML Prague conference    http://xmlprague.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------


Received on Thursday, 14 November 2013 15:47:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:37 UTC