- From: Laird A Popkin <laird@io.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:35:36 -0600 (CST)
- To: Eugene Kuznetsov <eugene@datapower.com>
- cc: "'Elliotte Rusty Harold'" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, <ice-dev@yahoogroups.com>
You're right -- "shouldn't" rather than "couldn't". Thanks! And I agree that we should pick a small number of standard ways of solving this, for interoperability. I'd suggest one in-band and one by-reference, since there are cases where either are operationally appropriate (e.g. you don't want to in-line encode a 700 MB movie). On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Eugene Kuznetsov wrote: > > The point of all of this is that since there are many fairly > > simple mechanisms for handling binary data in XML messages, > > and they've been in widespread production for a couple of > > years now, so I can't agree with the assertion that XML > > can't be used with binary data. > > I think Eliotte is saying that it *shouldnt* be used with binary data, > not that it can't be. > > To take the risk of summarizing the other position: since XML will be > used with binary data (wrong or right), let's agree on one or two ways > of doing it -- rather than 20. > > > \\ Eugene Kuznetsov > \\ eugene@datapower.com > \\ DataPower Technology, Inc. > \\ http://www.datapower.com - XS40 XML Security Gateway >
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 16:34:36 UTC