Re: XML Compression (Was RE: An unclear point with W
* Rich Salz <rsalz@d...> [2005-01-06 16:31]: > > The W3C XML Binary Characterization Working Group has the unenviable > > task of helping W3C decide whether we should be in the business of > > specifying some sort of efficient way to interchange XML that's > > different from gzip that HTTP can already use. > > I think they (not really we, I don't do much:) are actually doing > much better then that. There are three major documents: > Use cases -- who would benefit from binary xml and why, > and what restrictions they place on the format > (e.g., must both sides know the schema?) > Properties -- characteristics to consider for an encoding > (e.g., can you sign it, do random-access, etc) > Measurements -- how to apply the above two and get a weighted > score > > Anyone interested in the *concept* of binary XML should really take a look > at these documents. Thank you. That was a past and future direction of mine. I didn't mean to start a discussion of compression, however. Mine was a noobish question, really, like, am I missing something? If the OP is concerned about size. I was wondering why compression wasn't an option. It seemed like he was saying that all these tags take to long to process, download, or some such, but I know that symbol table can fix that. You don't have to try and fix the langauge. Maybe I'm being naive, but I thought the problem analysis of the OP was naive. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan@e...
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format