W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2005

Re: Andrew Layman and Don Box Analysis of XML Optimization Techni ques

From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 16:49:19 -0400
Message-ID: <42559CCF.6050706@metalab.unc.edu>
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 

Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo@metalab.unc.edu
XML in a Nutshell 3rd Edition Just Published!
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 20:49:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:08 UTC