Re: Larger than 32bit signed?

>1 - Once we start messing with the standard and
>extending it, we will no longer have a simple, stable
>standard for which it is easy to write compliant
>client and servers.

Sure we would.  The 1999 spec.  Extensions have existed for years, and
those of us who need maximum interoperability at the XML-RPC layer
ignore them.

I can understand objecting to people declining to implement the 1999
standard -- that's like being upset with a computer maker for
including a CDROM drive instead of a floppy drive.  But I can't agree
with objecting to extensions becoming available, which is like being
upset with Philips for inventing the CD.

Opposing the publication of variations on a standard is like
governments outlawing public meetings in order to prevent people from
coordinating well enough to overthrow the government.

>Just don't encode them as i4,
>but as base64. This slows things down because now a
>conversion is required on both sides,

I don't see that it would be slower.  Conversion on both sides is needed
for <i4> as well.  <i4> encodes a number as decimal text.

<string> would be a much better choice than <base64>.  There is one
obvious way to encode an integer as text, and it's human readable, and
most programmers have facilities readily available to encode and
decode it.

-- 
Bryan Henderson                                    Phone 408-621-2000
San Jose, California


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xml-rpc/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    xml-rpc-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/