RE: XML Compression (Was RE: An unclear point with W
Yep. Good enough or not enough is sometimes not discovered until run time. The cases that do need optimum speed and absolute optimum size can't be discounted. Standardization is a help and a straitjacket for reasons everyone here likely understand. What one hopes a standard prevents are reinvention, reimplementation, and terrorist patents. OTOH, where the standard isn't sufficient or is encumbered in some way, the engineers will find another solution. Just another day at work. The approach of the XBRC so far looks good in that it characterizes a solution space without attempting to legislate a one-size fits all wire pushup. len From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin.berjon@e...] Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > Yep. The problem is that the qualities one optimizes for tend > to be competitive, that is, none make all as fast or as > small as possible. It's too much like shoe and bra sizes: > the trendy solution may not be comfortable or long lived > so the classics keep on being used. Yeah, but very much unlike shoes or bras in this case we'd really like to all be wearing the same. The question isn't so much about the fact that you can't get both the absolute optimal speed and the absolute optimal size -- that's obvious. If however you include standardization as a third optimization axis (which in many ways is sensical), you will find many people agreeing that if it's standard they're happy with "faster enough" and "smaller enough". And it's not hard to be both faster and smaller than XML, the hardest part is getting a good feel for the "enough" bit.
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