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

Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 16:45:29 +1100
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACEBF@h...>

From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

> As Alaric points out, gzip gives a good file size 
> and if that were the only consideration, no binary
> is needed.  Experience says that size is not the 
> only reason for a binary.  

In particular, binaries can give indexed access, which
is more useful, I guess, when you have to send a lot
of data but potentially only use a little bit.*  

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

* Personally, I would like it if there a standard PI 
  <?xml-index href="http://...."?>
which, when downloaded, would give an index
of ID=>line/character positions in a document
in some format, to allow scanning.  Both parts 
could be packaged or available together. An 
incremental parser would skip to the position, 
parse only the element, and return that.  That
would open the door to some other ways of using
XML that might be useful sometimes.

• References:
  • RE: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SML: Second Try
• Next by Date: Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• Previous by thread: RE: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• Next by thread: RE: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread