[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Huh? I am asking if the binary supporters have determined if a standard XML binary offers enough benefits to justify the effort to "standardize". Spec anything and implement it until dawn, but only standardize based on hard evidence. IOW, folks will be wise to drop the 'standards' aegis and engineer instead. It's faster, gets good results, and you don't have to fly and stay in grubby motels. Calling something standard before it is even in use is just a politic of colonization. Sad, from one point of view, and infuriating from another like listening to butchers discuss pig rights. What I'm missing here is what you want this for CGM on the Web has been done. One might look at it and see if as some claim for XML, it needs "simplification". But no matter... given that anything you can dream up can be spec'd, I'd scope it to something doable with what's laying about. I agree with Al that PNG would be a good start. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Vegt, Jan [mailto:Jan.Vegt@s...] Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 10:02 AM To: Bullard, Claude L (Len) Cc: xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: "Binary XML" proposals >Images have not traditionally been a >subject for markup. True, and they never will if you put it like this. >Why? Raster is already in its native >format. Yes and no. From what I've experienced it is very platform and OS dependent. To rephrase, if: You look at markup as a wrapper layer which shields its data content (in time). Then: Is anyone aware of approaches for raster graphics with an analog approach to XML?(general mechanism, platform and vendor neutral) This IPI, IPI-IIF (ISO/IEC 12087) stuff sounded to be along similar lines, "transparent data exchange" etc. I will check it out further.
|

Cart



