• To: 'Robin Berjon' <robin.berjon@e...>
• Subject: RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 09:39:02 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>

Thanks Robin.  Helpful.

len

From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin.berjon@e...]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Yes.  I had never seen the term 'optimized xml' 
> used before.  I have seen 'binary'.

I've gotten into the (at least occasional) habit of using 'optimised' 
instead of 'binary' because I don't think the WG should presume that the 
solution -- if there is one -- necessarily relies on binarisation (even 
if all tests I've seen thus far makes it look very likely).

> Let's see what happens if a packaged document 
> set is wanted as well.  That is quite likely.

I think there's a hard rule that optimised XML MUST NOT support any 
feature that isn't supported by XML as well -- it's just optimisation. 
If it were to do packaged documents, it would be by encoding an XML 
expression of those.

One bit of going-to-get-started-with-any-luck work that is related to 
packaged docs is the W3C Workshop on Web Applications and Compound 
Documents:

   http://www.w3.org/2004/04/webapps-cdf-ws/index.html

• Prev by Date: Re: XML-appropriate editing data structures
• Next by Date: Re: XML-appropriate editing data structures
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list availabl e
• Next by thread: RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread