On MovieTome: The 10 worst movies of 2009 so far!
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 3 of 13:
Next »
« Previous
Why not have both?
There is no reason you can't have high efficency and portability. You simply need a way of describing your binary data in enough detail. XML Schema does a reasonable job of describing XML documents. We've been building Argot which does for binary data, what XML Schema does for XML.

Argot has the advantage that it can also define new ways to describe binary data. So if you have a specific description, Argot can be extended to meets the needs of the data.

There is plenty more that can be done in this area. And you do not need to trade off portability and efficiency. You do need to trade off readability, but shouldn't need to trade off anything else.
Posted by: Argot   Posted on: 01/13/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Easy technically, but still needs thought  bjcollin | 01/13/05
Not the only problem.  doe_z | 01/13/05
Why not have both?  Argot | 01/13/05
not enough  gsbtech | 01/13/05
To the next level then  bjcollin | 01/13/05
Oooh, too late!  Roger Ramjet | 01/13/05
Actually, Roger...  Yen_z | 01/13/05
Alternatives to binary XML  Argot | 01/13/05
ASN.1 has been around for a million years and translates back and fore  hipparchus2000 | 01/13/05
Simple Solution to XML Compression  mike@... | 01/14/05
XML Compression  jpshade@... | 01/14/05
ASN.1  ivap@... | 01/14/05
Adding a new protocol  dlenoir@... | 01/14/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement