• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Packaging (was Re: Interoperability)
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 23:42:36 -0500
• In-reply-to: <63327910.1005983089@[192.168.0.234]>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <15349.4513.929188.435106@m...> <63327910.1005983089@[192.168.0.234]>

On Friday 16 November 2001 07:44 pm, James Clark wrote:
> Another format that should be considered is DIME:
>
>   http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/xml_wsspecs/dime/default.htm
>
> It seems pleasantly simple and well-designed. You can stream it for both
> input and output.  It is being used by the Web Services Routing Protocol

OTOH. I have developed a severe aversion to any MIME-base format for general 
packaging of XML... lot's of issues that I don't even want to think about 
anymore.

Compared to XAR (or DZIP) I would say that DIME is more complex... and given 
that ZIP/WAR/EAR/JAR already exist, XAR seems like a trivial win.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Packaging (was Re: Interoperability)
    • From: James Clark <jjc@j...>

• References:
  • Packaging (was Re: Interoperability)
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Packaging (was Re: Interoperability)
    • From: James Clark <jjc@j...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Packaging (was Re: Interoperability)
• Next by Date: Achieving object model independence
• Previous by thread: Re: Packaging (was Re: Interoperability)
• Next by thread: Re: Packaging (was Re: Interoperability)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread