Print

Print


On 12/18/2012 9:05 AM, Louis-Dominique Dubeau wrote:
> What alternatives are being considered? If the idea is still to go back to <binaryObject>, then here are more reasons against it,
As the one who brought up <binaryObject>, I'll respond:

I wouldn't advocate using <binaryObject> for large binary objects of any 
kind -- image, video, or audio. But if the element really is 
<binaryObject> and not <binaryImage>, it should be as usable for an 
audio clip as for a small image.

I do wonder about the propriety of embedding a representation of 
something large, of embedding say an icon image, an audio clip,  a 
low-bit rate mpeg, or a low-resolution jpg, in the <binaryObject> and 
then using @facs to point to the full-quality file. It seems natural to 
me, but @facs is defined just for an image.

-- JPM
-- 
*John P McCaskey PhD* *⋅* www.johnmccaskey.com *⋅* [log in to unmask]