RE: "Binary XML" proposals

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Images have not traditionally been a 
subject for markup.  Why?  Raster is 
already in its native format.  When 
discussed (when I've been there), it was 
in the context of addressing, that is, 
imposing an address on a region of the 
raster (see Hytime FCSlocs, etc.)  Goldfarb 
and Chamberlain included raster markup 
in their seminal paper on non-text applications 
of SGML.  One has to understand that 
prior to XML, talking about using markup 
for graphics was considered a faux pas. 

No I don't remember the ISO standard work 
you cite.  I did not work in the graphics field 
except in the early eighties in CAD/CAM and 
then only as writer.

If I understand these proposals, including
raster will turn this into something along 
the lines of CGM.  So once again, is there 
a need for a standard XML binary or a 
specific language binary?

I don't have a conscience about  
my own behaviors, much less, the list. 
I'm just a committee formed long ago 
using the name of a guy who used to 
work for GE.  As the actor told 
George Jetson, "With the suit, 
anyone can be Dimbus." 

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Vegt, Jan [mailto:Jan.Vegt@softwareag.com]

Medical imagery? Think of the Dicom community. 
Spatial imagery? 

I do think Al may have a point regarding raster based
image data. 
One of my main interest's in XML is it's data 
longetivity potential. What facilities are there for
raster (pixel) based data?

CGM? Which I believe did cover raster data,
but is a pretty (too) complex standard.

Len, as the list conscience, would you have memories 
on stuff like IPI and IPI-IIF? (ISO/IEC 12087) 
What kind of ideas were behind that? Is it still
good, is it bad, or has it turned ugly?