While, as you point out, XML has problems with size/memory usage and
binary data (still solvable), what about using ASN.1. ASN.1 can handle
binary data, and uses a minimum amount of data to represent the same basic
structures. It also has the advantage of coding integers and dates in
machine readable format, rather then make the computer reparse that info.
73,
Shawn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-mail-ng(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-mail-ng(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Jacob Palme
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 3:32 AM
To: mail-ng(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Use of XML as a basis for e-mail
At 15.10 +0000 04-02-01, Paul Smith wrote:
<address>fred(_at_)company(_dot_)com</address>
That is not XML. That is a hybride of XML and ABNF. The
separation between localpart and domain address, and the
separation between domain elements, is in your example
based on ABNF specifications, not by XML.
Pure XML would be:
<address><localpart>fred</localpart>
<domainaddress><domainelement>company</domainelement>
<domainelement>com</domainelement></domainaddress>
</address>
This example clearly shows one disadvantage with XML, it
requires approximately twice as much space for the same
information as ABNF as used in e-mail.
Another problem with XML is that it cannot handle binary
data, which are important in e-mail, for example to include
pictures in messages or to attach binary attachments to
messages.
I am not saying that I am absolutely against XML in a
completely new e-mail system, just pointing out that it
will not be used completely. It will have to be used
together with other encoding methods, like BASE64.
--
Jacob Palme <jpalme(_at_)dsv(_dot_)su(_dot_)se> (Stockholm University and KTH)
for more info see URL: http://www.dsv.su.se/jpalme/