• From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• To: The Deviants <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 15:01:33 +0800

From: Al B. Snell <alaric@a...>

>...XML isn't good enough to realistically embed
>binary objects inside it, so they have to go over a seperate connection
>with some complex referencing mechanism.

Actually it seems like issues of how defaultable/compressible the data is,
and how inheritence is handled, which  determine whether an XML document or
a binary document is smaller. The specifics of how things are done seem to
dominate theory-based expectations.

"Even though an XML encoding, term for term, takes significantly more space
than a binary encoding, the archives produced by the new streams are
typically between 10x and 100x smaller than their serialized counterparts.
This is due to a comprehensive system for excluding default information from
the archives. "
http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/persistence/index.html

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Images embedded in XML
    • From: Al Snell <alaric@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Images embedded in XML
• Next by Date: Re: Images embedded in XML
• Previous by thread: Re: Images embedded in XML
• Next by thread: Re: Images embedded in XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread