• To: <grimlinda@e...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Naive question about binary encodings
• From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
• Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:25:10 -0000
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <005a01c2f341$e51704b0$6501a8c0@D89FK411>
• Reply-to: <michael.h.kay@n...>

> I'm sure this is really naïve of me, but I have to admit that 
> I don't understand why binary data cannot be sent within an 
> xml document by providing appropriately namespace-controlled 
> attributes that identify an element type as binary and 
> specify its length.  For example:
> 
> <foo xml:mytype="binary" xml:binarylength="1776"> 
> or some such thing, followed by 1776 octets of whatever one 
> likes.  It's kind of like MIME in some respects- as long as 
> its type and length are identified, you can do whatever you 
> like with it.
> 
> It's so obvious that I am sure it has been rejected already, 
> but, being a mere implementor, I don't quite understand why.

This would mean that you can't transcode a document without parsing it.

Michael Kay

• References:
  • Naive question about binary encodings
    • From: "Linda Grimaldi" <grimlinda@e...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XPointer goes to REC
• Next by Date: RE: mischief
• Previous by thread: RE: Naive question about binary encodings
• Next by thread: Re: Naive question about binary encodings
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread