W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > March 2003

Re: Binary-coded version of SVG?

From: Tayeb Lemlouma <Tayeb.Lemlouma@inrialpes.fr>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:12:18 +0100
Message-ID: <1b9501c2e96a$8e6abc00$0314c7c2@inrialpes.fr>
To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>, <www-svg@w3.org>
Cc: <robin.berjon@expway.fr>, "Double Ye" <iamdoubleye@yahoo.com.cn>

Hi Chris,

> Yes, but how do you know that this is the use case that Double Ye was
> thinking of? My original question was to find out which particular
> reason for a binary form prompted the original comment.

Doube Ye spoke about mobile networks and cites the WAP protocol, so I guess
he considers my use case (Now he is the only person who can says if I am
right or wrong :-) ).

> So you would see the binarization as happening in response to an
> explicit client request, perhaps by a proxy?

Yes, binarization can be done at the proxy or any intermediary level in
order to adapt the server answer to a particular delivery context (network
and client limitations, the kind of the communication protocol, etc.)

> I am aware of three or four, see the reference above to the TAG
> summary for some of them.

Thank's for that nice link

Tayeb*
----------
Tayeb Lemlouma
http://opera.inrialpes.fr/people/Tayeb.Lemlouma/index.html
WAM project
National Research Institute in Computer Science and Control (INRIA
Rhône-Alpes, France )
Office B213, phone (+33) 04 76 61 52 81, Fax (+33) 04 76 61 52 07.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
To: <www-svg@w3.org>; "Tayeb Lemlouma" <Tayeb.Lemlouma@inrialpes.fr>
Cc: <robin.berjon@expway.fr>; "Double Ye" <iamdoubleye@yahoo.com.cn>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: Binary-coded version of SVG?


>
> On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, 6:36:14 PM, Tayeb wrote:
>
>
> TL> Hi,
>
> >> That's one use case.
>
> TL> Right, I specified that use case to answer to the message of  Double
> TL> Y.(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2003Feb/0055.html).
>
> Yes, but how do you know that this is the use case that Double Ye was
> thinking of? My original question was to find out which particular
> reason for a binary form prompted the original comment.
>
> There can be many reasons, see for example
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Feb/0224.html
> for a partial list. Reduction of parse time should be added to that
> list.
>
> >>Are you working specifically in this area?
>
>
> TL> This is a part of our work but not the only one. We are working in all
which
> TL> is related to the content adaptation and negotiation problem in
> TL> heterogeneous environments
> TL> (http://opera.inrialpes.fr/people/Tayeb.Lemlouma/NAC.htm,
> TL> http://opera.inrialpes.fr/people/Tayeb.Lemlouma/publication.html) and
to the
> TL> Device Independence problem (http://www.w3.org/2001/di/).
>
> So you would see the binarization as happening in response to an
> explicit client request, perhaps by a proxy?
>
>
> >> I think that anything *completely* specific to SVG would be a
> >> mistake. It would have some utility for SVG Tiny content, but it
> >> would soon encounter arbitrary XML. And I'm not getting into
> >> "details" such as interoperability. Imho the best approach is to
> >> use something generic, optimised for SVG in an open manner (but
> >> then I'm biased).
>
> TL> You got the point.
>
> I would agree with this point also, something that is entirely SVG
> specific would not be useful.
>
> TL> Personally I don't know any effort proper to SVG,
>
> I am aware of three or four, see the reference above to the TAG
> summary for some of them.
>
> TL> this is an interesting problem to see if a specific binarization
> TL> of SVG can be more optimized than existing XML binarizations.
>
> Yes, approaches such as XMill can, with sufficiently careful creation
> of an XML Schema and sufficiently careful optimization of type values,
> give a more space-efficient delivery if that is the goal.
>
>
>
> --
>  Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
>
>
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2003 09:12:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:24 GMT