• To: Jeff Lowery <Jeff.Lowery@c...>
• Subject: Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• From: Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...>
• Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:04:02 +0000
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <4827EC373E03DB44AC2AB3900430896B672459@c...>
• References: <4827EC373E03DB44AC2AB3900430896B672459@c...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030704 Debian/1.4-1

Jeff Lowery wrote:
> Okay, I understand all that. As I'm sure has been pointed out before: don't
> the benefits binary coding diminish somewhat in heterogeneous environment
> where one has to worry about byte-ordering, bit-encoding of primitives, etc?

Only as much as one has to worry about the byte-ordering of UTF-8 
multi-byte sequences and the bit-encoding of characters in XML...

Eg, one doesn't sit and 'worry' about these things. Your libraries 
handle them for you. And even if you're the guy writing the library, 
byte ordering is hardly a 'worry'. You just use the byte ordering 
specified for the format. Use library functions like ntohl and ntohs to 
read data, and htonl and htons for writing, and the C libraries will 
handle it for you.

ABS

• References:
  • RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: Jeff Lowery <Jeff.Lowery@c...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Re: XML and a text editor, barefoot in the winter, uphill both ways [...]
• Next by Date: Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• Previous by thread: RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• Next by thread: RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread