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

RE: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?

• To: "John Cowan" <cowan@m...>
• Subject: RE: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• From: "Paul Spencer" <xml-dev@b...>
• Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:48:16 +0100
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <20030725112624.GC2215@m...>

> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@m...]
> Sent: 25 July 2003 12:26
> Paul Spencer scripsit:
>
> > They tried XML down the wire with very simple compression and found that
> > they were transferring data faster than previously.
> >
> > This will have to stay as anecdotal as I cannot describe the application
> > further.
>
> I understand that you are isolated behind a firewall, but can you at
> least say what is meant by "very simple compression"?

I wasn't involved at that stage of the project, so I'm not certain. I think
it was a zip format, but it could have been a line-level compression such as
V.42(?). Hence my comment that this should be treated as anecdotal. I will
see if I can get more information and permission to publish.

Paul Spencer

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: Robin LaFontaine <robin@d...>

• References:
  • Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• Prev by Date: Does RDF Solve the Problem of Semantic Interoperability Among Browsers?
• Next by Date: RE: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Previous by thread: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Next by thread: RE: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread