• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Quick Review of XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation
• From: Richard Tobin <richard@c...>
• Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 22:45:04 +0100 (BST)
• Cc:
• In-reply-to: <3DADD8A0.2000700@t...>
• Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh

>In the general case where you want to wrap up weird bits of binary 
>gibberish to control hardware, why don't you just base64 it and not have 
>to worry about which of them are magic C0 Controls and which aren't...

Because I want it to be human readable - and yes, I have had to try
and read parts of the termcap file more often than I'd like - and
because I want them to be easier to use than a random syntax made up
for the purpose, not harder.

>And you know perfectly 
>well that the people who want these aren't trying to exchange termcaps, 
>they're trying to wrap binary gibberish in the trappings of XML 
>interoperability.

I believe W3C confidentiality rules prevent me from confirming that :-)

But I agree that the termcap example is not a very compelling one.  It
just happens to be a real one.

BTW, presumably you think the C1 controls should be removed for the
same reason?

-- Richard

• References:
  • Re: Quick Review of XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Quick Review of XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation
• Next by Date: Re: Namespaces
• Previous by thread: Re: Quick Review of XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation
• Next by thread: Re: Quick Review of XML 1.1 Candidate Recommendation
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread