Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
tpassin@c... wrote: >>You're missing the point, the operative word being "universality". An >>XML parser can successfully read anything produced based on an XML >>schema language (not to mention all that can be done without any schema) >>-- unless that schema language is ASN.1 (which could be an argument for >>saying it isn't exactly an XML schema language). > > I read this part of the thread differently. The point, I think, was that > there would be a default encoding, and others could be used by negotiation. > A parser would only have to be able to decode the default, and that would be > used if negotiation disclosed that either side could only do the default. > > So if the default were xml, we would get full interop the same as we do now. > No need for a parser to have to decode all those other encodings. How does this work (amongst other cases) when: - you can't negotiate - XML is not an option I'm not saying it's unsolvable, I'm saying the solution is more complex than that. And that the trade-offs involved in adding a second universal format with a W3C imprimatur are hard to evaluate. -- Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...> Research Scientist, Expway http://expway.com/ 7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
|
