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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] Is this a good use of XML: XML-formatted images?

Maybe you have heard of this?

"This specification defines the features and syntax for Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) Version 1.1, a modularized language for describing two-dimensional vector and mixed vector/raster graphics in XML."


On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Costello, Roger L. <costello@mitre.org> wrote:

Hi Folks,

JPEG/JFIF, GIF, PNG, BMP are, as you know, binary data formats for images.

Why are there no XML-formatted images? Is XML not a good format for images? If it’s not, why not? I’ll speculate: perhaps the reason is simply that XML is too verbose. Is that the reason? Are there other reasons?

Below is a fictitious XML-formatted image. It has a metadata section with XML elements describing the image. After that is an image section containing the raw pixel (RGB) data.

As I look at this fictitious XML-formatted image, I tend to think that XML is not a good fit. Here’s why: Each pixel element contains text that is meaningless on its own. For example, what does <red>100</red> mean? Meaning – the image -- is spread over a large collection of elements. Perhaps, when meaning is spread widely and thinly, it is harder for applications to find meaning in XML than in binary?



<model>Canon EOS 60D</model>
<focal-length>40.0 mm</focal-length>


Timothy Cook

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]

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

Copyright 1993-2007 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS