Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Simon St.Laurent wrote: > > I suspect that using groves to define an Infoset for XML would be > great for > groves, but I'm not sure it would do anything good for XML. > I think the big win for XML would be a way to define a mechanism to arbitrarily convert legacy data into XML. As the author of XMTP and developer of an early binary to XML system, I can't tell you how many times I get asked the question about how to send images, as XML or MIME, via SMTP or HTTP, using SOAP? The answer, always, is: it all depends on what you want to do. XMTP demonstrates that any MIME message can be converted into XML. Is there any point *in actually* converting it into XML, for say XSLT transformation, or why not emit a series of SAX events via a parser. Can I use an XPointer to point into a MIME document? sure, via an XMTP 'view'. Now we are into real practical 'grove' issues. So, if there existed an XML Property Set, and I can define a common subset with a MIME Property Set, my XPointer/XLink specification which is built on top of XML Infoset (in the ideal world) can specify an 'XPointer' for MIME messages. > If that means reinventing the wheel periodically, well, there seem to be a > lot of wheels in need of periodic reinvention... > This is the big question :-) Jonathan Borden The Open Healthcare Group http://www.openhealth.org
|
