W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Discussion of Blob URI Scheme for Binary Data Access | IETF

From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 16:46:07 -0700
Message-ID: <4DCDC2BF.2090302@gmail.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
I wanted to point out some shader language as an example. Is this the WG 
to standardize something like GLSL into XML flow as an intermediate 
solution/language? To make some things more obvious or clarification, 
yes. The "urn:..." helps in HTTP headers. We've discussed low-level 
scalar data (LLSD) endlessly in the VWRAP WG for pivotal data. Named 
multi-parts sections (stream & blob:), something like Collada DAE that 
indexes those named sections (file:), already achieves what you want, 
with additional work needed to compile GLSL to XML flow (for proof first 
instead of render asset as-is at "Home").

Currently, there are some copyright/patent issues that seem to make 
people anxious about the above. Some try to analyze/solve it with 
forced-wait states, as that is the same old "look & feel" cure for gray 
goo... ☮

Wonder if there is some HTTP Header that says... "query expires upon 
some-unit of energy usage"... with microseconds as default such that the 
target system *secures the actual* power usage per second.

 > Expires: 1kW/s

206 "Partial Content"

On 05/13/2011 12:43 PM, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> More honest implementation of decentralized XMPP would be the good 
> start. I mean honest as in avoid 0-point-botnets and more physicality 
> to virtualization.
> Some implement streams where you have to subscribe to each one, with 
> hidden expectation to offload compute "payload". Some others implement 
> servers that subscribe to those streams to compute that payload and 
> combine those streams into customizable stream aggregates. When they 
> try to offload the "payload" again from the aggregates, they get 
> overly aggressive "botnets".
> People have tried to avoid the botnets and go more direct to the API 
> of those servers and discoverable resources. That's where we have 
> mapped you... X
> X only wants to allow Y and Z transversal with optional map of U and 
> V. In fact, YUV is already standard.
> On 05/13/2011 12:01 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
>> Problems along the way was an elaborate discussion of why we 
>> specifically didn't reuse an existing scheme.

--- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant
Received on Friday, 13 May 2011 23:47:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:13:52 UTC