XOM API for Processing XML with Java

[Wolfgang Hoschek <whoschek AT lbl.gov>]

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