XOM API for Processing XML with Java

["John.Cowan" <jcowan AT reutershealth.com>]

N.B.: speaking for myself, not the W3C's XML Core WG:

Michael Kay scripsit:

> 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.

If you want to map octets onto an alphabet of 256 characters,
U+E000..U+E0FF are at your service.  Alternatively, you could use a
small mapping table to make a slightly peculiar use of U+2800..U+28FF.
Base-64 will be more compact than either (in most encodings), if less
magnificently Unicode.

In any case, of course what I meant is that pure binary objects (GIFs, e.g.)
don't belong inside XML documents at all, and things like binary integers
should be converted to a proper textual representation first.

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

The word "random" is deeply polysemous: see the first seven definitions
at http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/R/random.html .  I was using
sense 2, with overtones of senses 4 and 7.

-- 
You let them out again, Old Man Willow!                 John Cowan
What you be a-thinking of?  You should not be waking!   
jcowan AT reutershealth.com
Eat earth!  Dig deep!  Drink water!  Go to sleep!       www.reutershealth.com
Bombadil is talking.                                    www.ccil.org/~cowan