[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: "Binary XML" proposals
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Vegt, Jan" <Jan.Vegt@softwareag.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:56:18 -0500
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
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.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Vegt, Jan [mailto:Jan.Vegt@softwareag.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 10:02 AM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
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
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).
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.