"Olivier Dubuisson" <asn1@r...> wrote in message 
news:70aaeb1e.0411020222.5d7ac525@p......
> "cr88192" <cr88192@r...> wrote in message 
> news:<83nhd.791$7t6.292@n...>...
>>
>> Binary XML:
>> this has manifested itself in a few forms, one of the most popular is 
>> wbxml:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/wbxml/
>> which demonstrates the possibility of binary xml as a hacked together 
>> mess
>> and has been used in both arguments for and against binary xml.
>> imo, wbxml is an example of a bad approach.
>>
>> other ideas I have heard stated involve use of ASN.1 and schemas as a 
>> basis
>> for binary xml. however, I will argue that this line of approach likely 
>> has
>> a limited application domain.
>
> More information on the "ASN.1 for XML" issue can be found there:
> http:/:asn1.elibel.tm.fr/xml/
>
yes, same as typically, not looking that compelling or very interesting from 
my point of view (I am imagining something similar to xml being adapted for 
something different).

within the core xml areas, I don't care as much (this is where the core 
people live). fringe stuff seems interesting, and possibly, eg, a format 
could offer some advantages, eg, over formats like riff or ebml for things 
like video, store images, 3d models, ...

the idea may well be overkill, and the design is becomming complicated. it 
may be necessary to narrow the scope and reduce the amount of "variable" 
stuff (eg: fixed dictionary rules, plat-only structure, ...).


I guess for everyone their own format.