[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Images embedded in XML
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Benjamin Franz <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 13:21:24 -0500
Right. I know it can be done and have
seen it done in earlier systems such as
Interleaf. I'm not sure given the existing
capabilities it is usually a good idea
given reuse and reliability. Can one do it;
sure. Should one do it? Only warily. A
spec for it isn't the differentiator; gravy maybe.
Today one usually wants to inquire if one
1. Wait for a spec to emerge.
2. Use an existing engine.
3. Write a new engine because an
emerging spec is incomplete, too simple,
or has spawned half a dozen other specs
to appear to be simple which ends up
meaning "incomplete" and "waiting".
In the *real* world we hear so much about,
implementors are usually digging around in a
box looking for a working widget to use instead
of waiting to build a new widget as soon as they
are sure the widget will be standard. Moving
the competition from companies to committees has
that side effect of late bloomers.
If a document on the web were a self-contained system,
URIs would be outlawed. :-)
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Benjamin Franz [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> If this works this well, why does HTML not
> embed images in the HTML page?
You can - it isn't a limitation of HTML. URI type 'data:' from RFC2397
<URL:http://www.landfield.com/rfcs/rfc2397.html>. Netscape has supported
it for a long time - but MSIE didn't last time I checked (a few years
Try it in Netscape and it will work. Try it in MSIE, and it probably will
not. Since MSIE has 86%+ of the market, designers won't use it at all.
That is the same reason designers don't use the 'OBJECT' tag, either (now
*that* was a real crime - MSIE almost certainly had to have
*intentionally* broken it. The tag was designed for transparent backward
compatibility, but MSIE throws major hissy fits over it and made it
impossible to deploy for *anything* except ActiveX.) The real question
becomes "Why doesn't MS want to support RFC2397?".
> Would one want to lose the XML payload if the image does
> not make it, the connection drops, etc.?
> As long as I can remember, embedding binary
> in markup has been discouraged.
> When would putting the binary in the XML
> be a good idea?
When you need to distribute a self-contained system.