From: John B. <jb...@ac...> - 2005-04-15 18:55:55
|
From: Glenn Randers-Pehrson <glennrp> >I'm pretty sure the idea of copy-unsafe variants of the text chunks has >been proposed before, and shot down. There seem to be very few proposals which have not been shot down, or, to misquote, a politician's observation about a peer "savaged to death by dead sheep." Ok. Everything is controversial. tXML could be identical to iTXt excepting that it contains XML and is unsafe-to-copy. iTXt could be used to hold XML by specifying a reasonable keyword syntax to use, for example: ... approval of keywords which start with the byte values of the four ASCII charcters "XML:" is reserved for the specification of data which shall be an application of XML and a well-formed XML document excepting that the keyword shall be understood to stand in place of the initial XML declaration. The remainder of the keyword shall be a unique identifier of an organisation responsible for the corresponding scheme expressed as [something defined by IANA? - something which means that com.adobe.xml is valid!] ... I'm assuming that an XML Packet *is* a well formed document - I didn't check that completely, I'm not currently up-to-speed on the state of XML. I'm ignoring the fact that the specification seems to imply that only uncompressed data is permited - clearly it is valid to make the iTXt data compressed. John Bowler <jb...@ac...> |