OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Binary vs. tagged data formats was: Re: [xml-dev] Re: Pushing allthe but

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread 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.



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS