[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Textual transmission typically faster?

• From: David Megginson <david@m...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:27:08 -0500 (EST)

Michael Beddow writes:

 > I've been to papers where this was indeed explained as a
 > compressibility issue, and it sort of made sense at the time.
 > 
 > The apparent textual redundancy of xml tagging means
 > tokenising compressors can really get to work

I recall one of the presenters at XTech last year had been
experimenting with using a Java-serialized DOM rather than the source
XML document, and was surprised to find that the Java-serialized DOM
was both considerably larger than the *uncompressed* XML and
considerably slower to load.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david@m...
           http://www.megginson.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Textual transmission typically faster?
    • From: Eugene Kuznetsov <eugene@d...>
  • Re: Textual transmission typically faster?
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>

• References:
  • Textual transmission typically faster?
    • From: Mark.Papiani@u...
  • Re: Textual transmission typically faster?
    • From: Michael Beddow <mbnospam@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Textual transmission typically faster?
• Next by Date: RE: Textual transmission typically faster?
• Previous by thread: Re: Textual transmission typically faster?
• Next by thread: RE: Textual transmission typically faster?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread