Article:		Binary XML, Again
Subject:		Binary Vs GZIP
Date:		2003-08-14 12:29:31
From:		Kendall Clark
Response to: Binary Vs GZIP
<u>some customers want opaque content and will not pay for complex content unless they have some reasonable protection against theft by view source.</u> I didn't touch on this, in truth, because it strikes me as completely lame. I believe you, Len, when say there are people (well, let's be clear, you mean *corporations*) who want such a thing. I for one simply have no interest in that usage of the Web. And, I suggest, the W3C shouldn't get into that business. As I said, subsets of subsets of various industries are free to define and abide by whatever 'standards' they care to create; what that has to do with the W3C's brief still escapes me. Thanks for responding, though -- gee, call the W3C a bunch of cultish nutters, as I did last time, and no one says a word. But suggest that the binary-fetishists should steer clear of the W3C (and that it should steer clear of them) and the sharp knives come out! :>

Previous Message

Up

Next Message

• Binary Vs GZIP
  2003-08-16 14:39:23 toto toto [Reply]
  
  i'm a beginner, sot it's may be stupid:

  
  when you want (raster) 2D graphics in a web page, you should use jpeg or gif

  
  so

  
  when you want 3D graphics in a web page, you SHOULD use a binary format (and why not, embeded in textual xml format)