Lists Home |
Date Index |
That was why I was asking. I see the worry in that
dimension. On the other hand, unless the technical
need for the binary infoset is strong, neither the
unencumbered or encumbered gadget will be used widely.
The test seems to be if a W3C WG or others can
come up with a binary infoset that is generally useful
for more than a few applications and isn't encumbered.
1. A requirements statement is needed that will pass
Tim and other's objections. Presumably, those in
industries whose applications need this and are not
MPEG members would step up to that. Why haven't they?
2. One would want to be aware of the MPEG patents as the
affect the design of the gadget-to-be-standardized-and-open.
What are the alternatives to encumbered BiM approaches? They
used a schema-based system. I wouldn't think one could patent
that but I've been surprised before.
BTW: as you probably know, the VRML/X3D guys want this too
and ran headlong into MPEG a while ago. I suspect the Web3D
CAD WG will want it too. What about the SVG community?
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> And the encumbrances of MPEG7 are?
Solid and heavy of course, what else do you expect from MPEG-style consortia?
It's pretty much "patent it or the others in the group will do it for you". And
it will be the exact same thing in all consortia that have similar patent
policies and that create their own binary infosets.
Maybe you're starting to see why I'm worried?