- From: John J. Barton <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:58:55 -0800
- To: "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>, "Don Box" <dbox@microsoft.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
At 12:29 PM 3/7/2003 -0500, Anne Thomas Manes wrote: >I certainly prefer the idea of using XInclude better than SwA or >WS-Attachments. But why not just use base64? It's really the better way to >go. Inline binary and base64 is fine for short objects in general purpose machines. But I think that a lot of XML+binary uses will be small XML messages containing instructions and large binary data objects sent from or to special purpose machines. Using inline storage for the binary has many drawbacks. Its not robust to partial transmission: you don't have any usable information until all the binary has been transmitted and the end of the XML has been reached. It is not easy for limited memory devices: you must buffer the input, count it, then reallocate to process the binary. It requires more complex sending software to embed the binary: you probably will shuffle the bits through application layer code for no purpose. The main argument against base64 is the pointless 30% increase in bits. The CPU cost of encoding is also pointless but then the processor is mostly idle anyway. Consider for example a camera sending an image. The XML will be a few kbytes and might be fixed in ROM; the binary will be a few Mbytes. If the receiver is a printer inline/base64 vs outline/jpeg could be the difference between success and failure. And here the costs are all in the design: we know that outlined/binary solutions are feasible and efficient. We just need to pick one. And of course each individual developer does not care about 30% increase or doubled memory requirements. But systems designers have to consider the aggregate impact of poor protocol decisions. But if inline/base64 works for you, fine by me and you are all set anyway. > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On > > Behalf Of Don Box > > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 1:46 AM > > To: xml-dist-app@w3.org > > Subject: Opaque data, XML, and SOAP > > > > > > > > A few of us have spent some time thinking about the problem space > > and wrote the down our thoughts in this area: > > > > http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/02/26/binaryxml.html > > > > DB > > > > ______________________________________________________ John J. Barton email: John_Barton@hpl.hp.com http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/John_Barton/index.htm MS 1U-17 Hewlett-Packard Labs 1501 Page Mill Road phone: (650)-236-2888 Palo Alto CA 94304-1126 FAX: (650)-857-5100
Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 19:13:00 UTC