- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 02:53:26 -0700
- To: <eugene@datapower.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
MTOM provides for a specific kind of optimization, namely serializing particular things as raw binary in separate parts of a multipart/related package. I think the notion of a binary XML is in a completely different space. Gudge > -----Original Message----- > From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org > [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Eugene Kuznetsov > Sent: 29 July 2003 23:04 > To: 'Mark Nottingham'; 'Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org' > Subject: RE: Optimisations other than Base64 > > > > > 1. Should MTOM accommodate encodings/optimizations other > than base64? > > a. If so, should the list be open-ended (i.e., extensible)? > > I think so. base64, while popular, is decidedly "old-tech". > Maybe there will be some new outcome from the binary XML > discussions, maybe other technologies can be applied in other > "transfer syntax" configurations, to use an ASN.1 term. The > important thing is to get everyone agreeing on how such > configurations are designated and to define a > lowest-common-denominator. Special applications (high > performance, low-bandwidth, etc.) are likely to have different needs. > > \\ Eugene Kuznetsov > \\ eugene@datapower.com > \\ DataPower Technology, Inc. > \\ http://www.datapower.com - XS40 XML Security Gateway > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2003 05:53:35 UTC