Summary: Encodings other than base64
Tony Graham <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.distributed |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
In belated fulfillment of my action item to "Summarise args regarding accomadating encodings other than base64": The current discussion was kicked off by Mark Nottingham asking the question [1] in his fulfillment of an action item. The arguments for accommodating encodings other than base64 that followed that post are: - base64, while popular, is decidedly "old-tech" [2] - Special applications (high performance, low-bandwidth, etc.) are likely to have different needs. [2] - ...relate this to the ongoing analysis of the XQuery/XPath data model. That model provides for all legal schema types. [3] Arguments against encodings other than base64 are: - One might take the view that optimizing more than one type encourages one to send the actual type label as part of the model. [3] - 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. [4] (Responding to the 'binary XML' mention in [2]) And on the fence: - The key question, to me, is whether or not it's desirable to always surface the encoding/type information in the Infoset. [5] Regards, Tony Graham ------------------------------------------------------------------------ XML Technology Center - Dublin Sun Microsystems Ireland Ltd Phone: +353 1 8199708 Hamilton House, East Point Business Park, Dublin 3 x(70)19708 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Jul/0061.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Jul/0063.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Jul/0066.html [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Jul/0071.html [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Jul/0068.html