[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: almost four years ago....
> -----Original Message----- > From: Alaric Snell [mailto:alaric@a...] > Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 11:10 AM > To: The Deviants > Subject: Re: almost four years ago.... > This is easy to do. GZIP is massively crippled by having no > information about the structure of the file - it's just a string of bytes that > it has to make some assumptions about the probable structure of with regards > to frequency distributions that won't even apply very well to XML; Not really wishing to start up the binary XML/ASN.1 argument again, but it would be nice to see concrete, real-world data supporting this assertion. How MUCH better does XML-aware compression work than a generic tool? How much more or less computation does it require? > it's trivial to write something that compresses better Undoubtably true, but will the difference make a difference? Can you make a business case that someone will get more happy users for the actual product by writing something that compresses x% better than an off-the-shelf generic technology? The success of the HTTP/HTML is probably due to the economy gained by ignoring many of the nasty problems that previous hypertext proposals handled "better". And the he bankruptcy courts are clogged with companies that had a "better" solution to a problem that people didn't care about strongly enough to actually pay to have solved. "Worse is better" may be lousy technology, but tends to be good business, and engineering is all about making appropriate tradeoffs between the two.
|
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
|