Sign In/My Account | View Cart  
advertisement

Article:
Binary XML, Again
Subject: Binary Vs GZIP
Date: 2003-08-14 09:15:31
From: Len Bullard
The VRML community has a long history with GZIP. It even has file name extensions and types to denote that a VRML97 or X3D file is zipped. Because the sizes of the files some years ago were large, zipping became necessary. As bandwidth has improved, it is less necessary but still used. VRML or X3D like most text formats zip well; the bigger problem is as in other formats, images and other non-text media that are used in the multimedia text language.


I have quoted some comments from Alan Hudson on why the X3D community considers a binary for X3D to be a must have. See


http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/08/06/x3d.html


Also, along the lines you suggest in your article, the Web3D Consortium has issued an RFP for submissions for binary components and have affirmed their commitment to work with the W3C on this as events warrant. I believe some members of the Web3DC will present on this topic at the upcoming workshop.


This question seems to revolve around the utility of a generalized binary for XML. It can be shown that for some applications, a binary is useful not only for performance sake, but for a reason you do not touch on: some customers want opaque content and will not pay for complex content unless they have some reasonable protection against theft by view source. Yes, there are no theft-proof formats from simple binarization, but they still insist on it and contend it is good enough protection.

No Previous Message Previous Message   Next Message Next Message

Full Text Titles Only Newest First

Sponsored By: