• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Compiled XML
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 07:35:05 -0500
• In-reply-to: <200203270553.g2R5rxt00607@s...>

3/27/2002 12:53:59 AM, Mike Brown <mike@s...> wrote:

>Mike Champion wrote:
>> In general, though, you would be well-advised to not try to compress 
>> arbitrary text better than gzip can.  You'll fail.
>
>http://sources.redhat.com/bzip2/index.html is gradually gaining wider
>acceptance and distribution. I'd say it's where gzip was in 1993-94. It's a
>little more CPU intensive but is also consistently better than gzip.

Sorry, I was using "gzip" in a vague way to represent modern compression
libraries.  My assertion -- which is just my sense of
the previous discussions, not a competent professional opinion -- 
was that it's unlikely that a "binary XML" scheme would compress 
data significantly better than an off the shelf text compression algorithm.  

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Compiled XML
    • From: Alaric Snell <alaric@a...>

• References:
  • Re: Compiled XML
    • From: Mike Brown <mike@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Inheritance and Architectural Forms (was RELAX NG Marketing)
• Next by Date: RE: Capitalism and XML (was RELAX NG Marketing)
• Previous by thread: Re: Compiled XML
• Next by thread: Re: Compiled XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread