Re: Version 1.1 wishlist Update

Nathan J. Stranb> (stranb>@physics.purdue.edu)
Mon, 19 Jun 95 16:53:11 EST

>
> Taking a quick
>
> > resolution of binary file question
> > I think
> >doing a binary file format.
>
> That may be an overstatem>nt, but I don't think's provided
> enough hard motivation to create one
> though, if someone showed that there really would be major
> improvem>nts over simple compression. So far, there have been lots
> of assertions in both directions, but not enough to-the-point fact.
>
> Dead issue until compelling numbers come forth, I think...

I'm gonna drop my support for a binary format until I see HTTP NG
It is supposed to use
transfer of multiple files.. in a bandwidth nice way... so all
we may have to do is break up our files into parts...

>
> > WWWInline/WWWInclude that doesn't render for reading
> > not yet resolved. My feeling is there should be some
> >field on WWWInline that tells whether or not to render the inline space.
>
> Well, for now we've got
> for the mom>nt. Personally, I'm just as inclined to put this one off
> to 2.0, and there deal with the broader issue of making objects work
> right. I think
> 2.0...

I think so that we can let everybody run with it and see how authoring tool
will use really is, so that we have
a good base to develop interactive features on... well IMHO

>
>
> > Video Streams
> > Ar> we going to discuss this at some point, or will it
> >get left for 1.2 or whatever?
>
> I suspect think
> now? I don't.

HTTP NG is supposed to have special features to make this easier,
I proposed we wait and see what they do...