• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: SAX for Binary Encodings (SAD-SAX)
• From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>
• Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 23:09:04 -0500
• References: <000f01c3a614$7a3e3600$650aa8c0@BOBDEV> <p06002002bbd2da85adc7@[192.168.254.4]> <3FAD8B8D.4000200@a...> <p06002009bbd35b67f5db@[192.168.254.4]>

I am reading (some of) these passionate exchanges and
I have a hard time getting passionate myself one
way or the other.

It seems one side thinks the main seeling point is
the capability to store/stream structured text,
while the other side wants to use the same principal 
mechanisms for data.

Well, text is just a (very portable) way of encoding
data. On the other hand, why not use similar mechanisms
for storing/streaming data with other encodings?

Yes, XML/SAX is about text, but one can abstract out
the more general concepts and apply them differently.
Maybe its just a turf war about names.
Why not call it BinSAX then, or similar?

If I send "7" or "007" or one byte as 00000111 or
a 32 bit big endian integer, the recipient has to
make sense of it, hopefully in a way that relates
to the underlying data. And let's not get confused
by encoding artifacts that may or may not be meaningful, 
depending on what we communicate about. "7" = "007",
or maybe not.

Karl

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: SAX for Binary Encodings (SAD-SAX)
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • RE: SAX for Binary Encodings (SAD-SAX)
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>
  • RE: SAX for Binary Encodings (SAD-SAX)
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: SAX for Binary Encodings (SAD-SAX)
    • From: Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...>
  • Re: SAX for Binary Encodings (SAD-SAX)
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SAX for Binary Encodings (preserving investment)(ASN.1 and SAX)
• Next by Date: RE: SAX for Binary Encodings (SAD-SAX)
• Previous by thread: Re: SAX for Binary Encodings (SAD-SAX)
• Next by thread: Re: SAX for Binary Encodings (SAD-SAX)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread