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

Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• From: Brian Stafford <brian@s...>
• Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:17:33 +0100
• In-reply-to: <NBBBIBMKFOFCNEBAKDPLEEHPGCAA.xml-dev@b...>; from xml-dev@b... on Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 11:52:42 +0100
• References: <NBBBIBMKFOFCNEBAKDPLEEHPGCAA.xml-dev@b...>

On 2003.07.25 11:52, Paul Spencer wrote:

>  One of my customers had been using a highly optimized (in their  
> opinion)  binary format for certain message types for many years. The 
> IT  department  wanted to go XML, the users didn't for performance 
> reasons.
> 
>  They tried XML down the wire with very simple compression and found  
> that  they were transferring data faster than previously.


I can also back this up anecdotally.  Having gone to the effort of 
implementing the WAP forum's WBXML format with a customised dictionary 
of element names for my application, I doscovered that simple gzip 
compression using libz gave far better results.  If I primed the 
compressor with a dictionary of expected element names, there was an 
even more significant improvement.

Regards
Brian

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>

• References:
  • RE: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: "Paul Spencer" <xml-dev@b...>

• Prev by Date: Re: filesystems
• Next by Date: RE: Parsing a DTD
• Previous by thread: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Next by thread: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread