[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XML / HTML Transport size
Robin Berjon scripsit: > > A variety of > > small-scale studies have shown that general-purpose compression is generally > > as good as, or better than, some scheme that knows it's compressing XML. > > Err, quite the opposite. XMill beats gzip. This one is news to me, but I'm looking into it now. > BiM/BiX requires a schema, Yes: by "knows it's compressing XML" I meant to imply "and doesn't know anything more than that". > but there are many ways in which a schema can be deduced, even with just > a raw document (and it can be done more intelligently than most tools > that deduces schema information from instances I've seen out there do > it). Pointer(s)? > If by extreme you mean "extremely > limited compared to your average desktop or server" or "requiring > extremely big payloads" then you're right, but if you meant "rare" then > I'm afraid your point doesn't hold: small devices consuming XML are > crawling all over the place :) I did mean the former. > In addition to that, having a single standardized way of binary-encoding > XML means that industry-specific standard organisations can stop wasting > their time creating ad hoc binary encodings for their XML data that will > fall apart with the first need for change, and use tried and shared > technology instead. Always a Good Thing. -- John Cowan jcowan@r... www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com "In the sciences, we are now uniquely privileged to sit side by side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand." --Gerald Holton
|
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
|