- From: Tayeb Lemlouma <Tayeb.Lemlouma@inrialpes.fr>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 15:12:18 +0100
- 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 UTC