Lists Home |
Date Index |
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Or you can already have experience with the content in
>both the production and deployment scenarios and know
>you need "a" binary independent of the XMLization. That
>is the case for real time 3D. VRML needed the binary prior
>to X3D. We already have the experience. Again:
>1. The case for a binary depends on the application.
>2. The case for a generalized XML binary will depend
> on requirements that enough XML applications share to
> to justify the specification costs.
A few years ago (e.g. circa 1998) I thought it would be a good idea to
develop an XML representation of the tagged binary ACR/NEMA DICOM
standard for (Digital Image COmmunication for Medicine). Well, it turns
out that when you are transmitting megabyte -> terabyte hunks of data
around, that having a full network protocol stack may actually be the
way to go (DICOM is mostly over TCP/IP but there is a spec for a DICOM
physical layer connector (i.e. a wire :-).
It also turns out that developing an XML representation of a tagged
binary format (modulo chunks of raw image data) is a fairly easy thing
to do .... hmm it looks like Robin Cover has archives one of my efforts
at this here: http://xml.coverpages.org/DICOM-dtds.zip and see:
That said, aside from the "gee I can turn anything into XML!" factor, I
think there is a perfectly good place for binary data formats where they
are appropriate, so several years later I am still using DICOM -- many
many times a day, but haven't spent much time actually using the
XMLization I created.