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

RE: RFC: Attributes and XML-RPC

• From: "Steven Livingstone, ITS, SENM" <steven.livingstone@s...>
• To: Mark Nutter <mnutter@f...>, xml-dev@i...
• Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 14:34:39 +0100

>On the other hand, that redundant data ought to compress quite well using 
>currently available technology.

I suppose that depends on whether you could bank on people to use the same
compression/decompression algorithms (if this is what you mean).
The advantange I see over XML right now is that it is just text - full stop.
Anyone can read it. Could we keep this guarantee w.r.t compression?

I agree there are places where we could save on redundancy - I suppose it
depends on what you need to do.

One thing mentioned on the XML-RPC web discussion is the ease by which an
attribute could be ignored by an implementation which didn't understand it -
not easily new_word> doable </new_word> using XML elements without effecting
the doc structure (maybe this has already been mentioned?).

Rgds,
Steven

Steven Livingstone - http://www.deltabiz.com
07771 957 280 or +447771957280

Author - 
Professional Site Server 3, Wrox Press
http://www.wrox.com/Consumer/Store/Details.asp?ISBN=1861002696
Professional Site Server 3.0 Commerce Edition, Wrox Press
http://www.wrox.com/Consumer/Store/Details.asp?ISBN=1861002505

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Mark Nutter [SMTP:mnutter@f...]
> Sent:	22 September 1999 14:18
> To:	xml-dev@i...
> Subject:	Re: RFC: Attributes and XML-RPC 
> 
> At 11:43 PM 09/21/99 +0100, Steven Livingstone wrote:
> > > and an equivalent with attributes
> > > <person name="Steven" age="24" height="1.87" iq="7">
> > >
> > >
> > > The first has 79 characters and the second has 52. If we transferred
> 10
> > > peoples information accross the wires, we would need 270 "redundant"
> > > characters (2700 with 100 persons) !! 10 persons *is not* a lot of
> data
> > > for the applications I often write.
> 
> On the other hand, that redundant data ought to compress quite well using 
> currently available technology.  Wouldn't that tend to mitigate the 
> disadvantage?  Suppose, too, that in some hypothetical successor to XML, 
> the closing tag could be abbreviated to just </>, saving 15 characters per
> 
> record.  Now we're down to only 12 extra characters per record.  (Ok, 
> that's pretty much moot, but then again so is attribute-less XML.  Just 
> wagging a flag out there -- this topic is fairly interesting, at least to 
> me).
> 
> -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
> 
> Mark Nutter, <mnutter@f...>
> Internet Applications Developer
> FORE Systems
> Some people are atheists 'til the day they die.
> 
> 
> xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
> Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on
> CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
> To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
> (un)subscribe xml-dev
> To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following
> message;
> subscribe xml-dev-digest
> List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Prev by Date: Don't forget Robin Cover's site
• Next by Date: Re: RFC: Attributes and XML-RPC
• Previous by thread: Re: RFC: Attributes and XML-RPC
• Next by thread: RE: RFC: Attributes and XML-RPC
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread