- From: John J. Barton <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:53:12 -0800
- To: <eugene@datapower.com>, "'Anne Thomas Manes'" <anne@manes.net>, "'Don Box'" <dbox@microsoft.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
At 04:50 PM 3/10/2003 -0500, Eugene Kuznetsov wrote: ><snip> > >Here is another suggestion, one that is quite half-baked: in an ideal >world, where we could add extensions to XML syntax itself or piggy-back >on existing extensions (entities, PI's, CDATA, etc.), is there anything >that would be better than base64 but still allow binary data to be >embedded? All we'd need is a "binary" rather than "base64binary" that did not apply base64 to the data. The base64 bit is only useful for email. Back to reality however: any such change to XML seems unlikely. ______________________________________________________ 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 Monday, 10 March 2003 20:53:28 UTC