- From: David Ryan <david@einet.com.au>
- Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 11:08:44 +1100
- To: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- CC: public-xml-binary@w3.org
Robin Berjon wrote: > > David Ryan wrote: > >> But I'm surprised there is so little choice around for this problem; >> especially given that the problem of developing and agreeing upon a >> data format or schema is so fundamental. Just to reiterate my >> question in a slightly different way. Is there no other binary >> format around, that is not ASN.1 and is not a simple binary formated >> XML(ie A binary encoding that is flexible and that has schema >> properties to describe the format of the encoding)? > > > What do you mean by "a simple binary formated XML"? There are quite a > few binary XML formats out there that do more than just replacing tags > with binary tokens. Some use schema information to encore XML > information in binary form. > You are correct that with "simple binary formated XML", I was referring to are those that just perform tokenisation of XML and don't use an XML Schema. Can you point me to those XML binary formats that use XML Schema in the encoding process? This might have some relevance to Argot. Originally I expected to find some formats other than ASN.1 that I could investigate in relation to my own work with Argot. I specifically asked for non-XML binary formats, because I was interested to see what other work had been done that wasn't tied to XML Schema or XML directly. Specifically, I was looking for other ways of defining binary ontologies. However, there is either very few people on this mailing list, or there really is very little in this space. I have been planning to write an XML Schema to Argot dictionary converter. However I may need to do this a bit quicker so I can have Argot join the fray of other XML Binary formats. :) Thanks, David Ryan. www.einet.com.au
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2004 00:06:37 UTC