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?
Thoughts?
/Roger
<My-New-Image-Format>
<Metadata>
<make>Canon</make>
<model>Canon EOS 60D</model>
<exposure>1/100</exposure>
<aperture>4.5</aperture>
<focal-length>40.0 mm</focal-length>
...
</Metadata>
<Image>
<Row>
<Pixel>
<Red>100</Red>
<Green>0</Green>
<Blue>0</Blue>
</Pixel>
<Pixel>
<Red>100</Red>
<Green>0</Green>
<Blue>0</Blue>
</Pixel>
...
</Row>
...
</Image>
</My-New-Image-Format>
