RE: "Binary XML" proposals

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

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@softwareag.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 10:02 AM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
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.