Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: Robin Berjon [mailto:email@example.com]
>I don't see it as strong vs weak, though I do think that it is strong in a
>number of industries. I see it as happening vs not happening, and it is
>happening. If you have to pay royalties to send your SVG to phones made by
>vendor foo, and vendor foo has a large market share, you're basically stuck.
Vendor foo can always make you do that. Standards compliance is a voluntary
issue. Vendor foo needs a stronger incentive one of which would be a strong
standard for an infoset binary that works for multiple applications and has
no encumbrances. Vendor foo might buy into that if it benefits multiple
applications. Remember, XML is not the best means for many particular cases;
it is a good means for enough of them that the pain averages out profitably.
> 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?
>What do you mean by requirements statement?
I mean one which all of the parties at the W3C can get behind. If you
have one already, so much the better. But the objection I seem to hear
to this is that a binary infoset generic enough that everyone can use
it might be too general and therefore, won't meet the stringent requirements
of applications where it is most needed.
>I work for the people that hold those patents. Speaking for myself, I think it
>may be possible to find an un-encumbering solution to standardize something
>BiM-like. Apart from that, dodging patents in that area is going to be
Yuck. That is what scares me. It could mean they got there early in a domain where
there are 1.25 useful solutions, and patented that. If so, this is a spilt milk situation.
It depends on the specific patents and alternatives.
>An alternative option would be to provide an interop framework and perhaps
>common foundations, and let various implementations compete. I can't say I'm a
>big fan of that option.
I don't know how that works.
>It depends on what you mean by the SVG community. I don't think the WG is
>currently interested in using BiM or a similar schema, but we haven't discussed
>that (at least not since I joined). As for users of SVG there is strong interest
>in having a good binary format, notably for mobile and for interactive TV (which
>is an excellent target for SVG 1.1 Basic).
A generic binary for markup has been a topic since before the web. Somehow,
it always stalls out as Dan Connoly noted. What you are saying is that:
1. MPEG has one and it is encumbered.
2. MPEG may have already cornered the optimum approach.
3. Other approaches are already growing in isolated domains.
4. We may end up with a set of non-interoperable defacto
5. We should try to create an interoperable open standard approach
that is reasonably optimum for everyone (that is the Web3DC
position as well if I understand what Don Brutzman has said.)
So, if I understand you correctly, time is not on the side of
the W3C or others who need this. You are saying that they don't
need to justify that need; they need to get together and decide
if a common standard royalty free solution is possible and do
it as soon as possible.
Ummm... why was this brought to the TAG? This seems like a
subject for requesting a new WG, not an architecture issue?