- From: Eugene Kuznetsov <eugene@datapower.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:21:08 -0500
- To: "'John J. Barton'" <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> 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. Well, it's not as simple as just no encoding -- you still have to deal with the delimeter problem, right? If your binary data contains "</foo>", that would be a problem. What you need is an unparsed entity of sorts for binary data. > to outweigh the > interoperability / backwards incompatibility costs, preferably with > realistic use cases as actual performance/bandwidth data. Mike, where/to-whom would one submit these? Just the business of optimizing handling of arbitrary-length element and attribute names can keep someone quite busy for a while, multi-megabyte base64 sections will not be a good thing. Interestingly, all the discussion focus here is on the on-the-wire encoding issues -- doesn't seem that anyone feels strongly that binary data should be passed by reference in some external envelope? \\ Eugene Kuznetsov \\ eugene@datapower.com \\ DataPower Technology, Inc. \\ http://www.datapower.com - XS40 XML Security Gateway
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 08:21:33 UTC