From: P A Hill & E V Goodall (goodhill_at_xmission.com)
Date: Mon Oct 21 2002 - 19:19:23 CEST
Return-Path: <owner-cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch> Delivered-To: cavexml-archive_at_cartography.ch Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 63BCA15917 for <cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:39:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 28) id 4009914ACF; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:39:53 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: cavexml-loopcheck_at_ethz.ch Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 3049A15917 for <cavexml-loopcheck_at_ethz.ch>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:39:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 96) id 0E8B38A74; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:39:49 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id B409315917 for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:39:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mgr2.xmission.com (mgr2.xmission.com [198.60.22.202]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 4B2687DEB for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 19:39:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [198.60.22.200] (helo=mail.xmission.com) by mgr2.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 183gDR-0003wX-02 for cavexml_at_cartography.ch; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:19:45 -0600 Received: from goodhill.dsl.xmission.com ([198.60.114.17] helo=xmission.com) by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1) id 183gDR-00079y-00 for cavexml_at_cartography.ch; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:19:45 -0600 Message-ID: <3DB4371B.7070302@xmission.com> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:19:23 -0600 From: P A Hill & E V Goodall <goodhill_at_xmission.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch Subject: Re: Other Definitions - Raw vs Field References: <20021020134116.4509D7E98_at_karmail.ethz.ch> <3DB417F8.2060907_at_xmission.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Loop: cavexml Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karmail.ethz.ch Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11
P A Hill & E V Goodall wrote:
> I'm all for using standards, so I'd encourage the use of whatever new
> schemes for this come along, but I am certainly within the bounds of
> existing XML to define some tag and then claim to the users for that
> tag, that the CDATA which is contained within happens to be an image
> organized in some way.
Or another way to look at it is:
Yes everyone might eventually decide to exclude any form of "field data"
from the resulting CaveXML, because they decide it is useless to include
field data, or because the solutions in XML are not appropriate, but first
we must define what is "field data" and what is "raw data", so we can later
make that decision and so that when you do you don't confuse anyone.
But if someone really wants to play with binary data in an XML file, they
might check out:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-binary/?dwzone=xml
Which talks about three solutions (one of which Richard mentioned).
* Type 1: Represent the binary data by means of external entity and notation
* Type 2: Represent the binary data using MIME data types
* Type 3: Embed the binary data in CDATA section
Of course any emerging standard would be useful here also. I supposed
it looks a lot like Type2 but with standard elements and attributes.
HTH,
-Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Oct 31 2002 - 23:00:00 CET