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

RE: XML Binary and Compression

• To: elharo@m..., xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: XML Binary and Compression
• From: winkowski@m...
• Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:18:14 -0500
• Cc: winkowski@m..., msc@m...

Hmm, I'm sorry you don't think schema-based encoding is fair. I find it odd
that you regard schema-based (encoding) compression as lossy. This term is
normally associated with a permanent loss of information. Neither ASN.1 or
MPEG-7 result in the loss of XML content (the original content did not of
course contain the XML schema). The deployment of the schema upon which
encoding/decoding is based in a management issue. There is no need to
transmit it as part of the encoded content.

- Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@m...]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 10:01 AM
> To: winkowski@m...; msc@m...; xml-dev@l...
> Cc: winkowski@m...; msc@m...
> Subject: RE:  XML Binary and Compression
> 
> 
> At 11:54 PM -0500 3/10/03, winkowski@m... wrote:
> 
> >On reflection, I don't think that the conclusions reached 
> are all that
> >surprising. Redundancy based compression achieves better 
> results as the file
> >size, and consequently the amount of redundancy, increases. 
> CODECS that take
> >advantage of schema knowledge achieve efficient localized 
> encodings and also
> >need not transmit metadata since this information can be 
> derived at decoding
> >time.
> 
> I may have missed something in your paper then, because I didn't 
> realize you were doing this. If you're assuming that the same schema 
> is available for both compression and decompression, then you're 
> doing a lossy compression. The conmpressed forms of your documents 
> have less information in them than the uncompressed forms. I don't 
> consider that to be a fair or useful comparison with  raw XML with 
> metadata present.
> 
> Then again, maybe that's not what you meant? If you're somehow 
> embedding a schema  in the document you transmit, then it's really 
> just another way of compressing losslessly and that's OK, though In 
> would still require that the schema used for compression be derived 
> from the instance documents rather than applied pre facto under the 
> assumption of document validity. Hmmm, that's not quite right. What I 
> really mean is that given a certain schema it must be possible to 
> losslessly encode both valid and invalid documents.
> -- 
> 
> +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
> | Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@m... | Writer/Programmer |
> +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
> |           Processing XML with Java (Addison-Wesley, 2002)          |
> |              http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/xmljava             |
> | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0201771861/cafeaulaitA  |
> +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
> |  Read Cafe au Lait for Java News:  http://www.cafeaulait.org/      |
> |  Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.cafeconleche.org/    |
> +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
> 

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: XML Binary and Compression
    • From: "Alessandro Triglia" <sandro@m...>
  • RE: XML Binary and Compression
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: XForms - Secure or Insecure?
• Next by Date: Re: XForms - Secure or Insecure?
• Previous by thread: FW: XML Binary and Compression
• Next by thread: RE: XML Binary and Compression
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread