Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

xom-interest - Re: [XOM-interest] Is XML Text or CDATA that includes the zerocharacter legal?

xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: XOM API for Processing XML with Java

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Wolfgang Hoschek <whoschek AT lbl.gov>
  • To: Michael Kay <mike AT saxonica.com>
  • Cc: xom-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org, "'John.Cowan'" <jcowan AT reutershealth.com>
  • Subject: Re: [XOM-interest] Is XML Text or CDATA that includes the zerocharacter legal?
  • Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 15:24:27 -0700

The oigins of base64 are archaic. Many many years ago, some network transmission devices couldn't handle arbitrary octets. At that time the greatest common denominator was considered to be an alphabet of 64 chars, hence base64 encoding. None of these limitations apply to todays transmission devices, yet the legacy still creeps up in today's protocols, leading to unnecessary restrictions, complexity and confusion. Ah, well.

[Byte stuffing mechanisms such as COBS will always remain relevant, because the need for framing of arbitrary sized packets/messages/ documents/whatever doesn't go away.]

Wolfgang.

On Jul 28, 2005, at 2:29 PM, Michael Kay wrote:


Speaking for myself and not the Core WG, I consider that a
dysproperty. Random
binary trash should not just be stuffed unthinkingly into XML
documents.



Ah, I see. It is good to map octets onto an alphabet of 64 characters
because it requires more thought than mapping them onto an alphabet of 256
characters. I humbly thank the Core WG for giving me this wonderful
opportunity to exercise my brain cells.


Michael Kay

(Hey, if it's random then it's not trash. Random sequences are precious. You
can't have it both ways.)


_______________________________________________
XOM-interest mailing list
XOM-interest AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/xom-interest








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page