• To: James Clark <jjc@j...>
• Subject: Re: Packaging (was Re: Interoperability)
• From: Jun Fujisawa <fujisawa.jun@c...>
• Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 16:36:43 +0900
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <63327910.1005983089@[192.168.0.234]>
• References: <15349.4513.929188.435106@m...><63327910.1005983089@[192.168.0.234]>

At 7:44 AM +0700 01.11.17, 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

The DIME packaging seems to be useful when it is applied to a data
exchange format between resource-limited devices. The ZIP packaging
is suited in the document oriented application area where random access
is essential. There is also a place for MIME packaging especially for
the purpose of messaging.

People tend to concern about which packaging method is best suited for
packaging XML documents with related resources. I'd like to suggest
that it is more important to have a common and standard manifest
format (presumably specified in XML) which can be used combined
with all of the above packaging method.

Does the manifest file specification of OpenOffice package satisfy
this requirement?


--
Jun Fujisawa
<mailto:fujisawa.jun@c...>

• 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: RE: so why don't more browsers support XSLT?
• Previous by thread: Re: Packaging (was Re: Interoperability)
• Next by thread: Re: Packaging (was Re: Interoperability)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread