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

Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...

• To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>
• Subject: Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• From: Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...>
• Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:14:14 +0000
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <3FBDAFDA.3010905@a...>
• References: <004201c3af99$e9944010$650aa8c0@BOBDEV> <3FBDAFDA.3010905@a...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030704 Debian/1.4-1

Rick Jelliffe wrote:

> Also, it would interesting to see binary people use Chinese (Japanese or 
> Korean) text
> and markup for their test data.  Compressing or packing ASCII is quite 
> different to
> compressing or packing UTF-16 Chinese, which has a more random-seeming 
> distribution
> of byte values.  It is not dishonest to make the case for binary using 
> data that
> is most compressible; but businesses who are looking at compression 
> strategies
> for world-wide use need to factor in CJK compressability into their 
> evaluations.

That only makes a difference if you're actually compressing the text 
fields - most binary interchange formats will just write the text in 
UTF-8 and leave it at that; however lower-level byte sequence 
compressors will just see the text as bytes rather than as characters. 
I've yet to see an implementation of the deflate algorithm (as used by 
gzip) for UCS-4 codepoints rather than just bytes, but it could be done 
and would be very interesting (but if you use a wide range of characters 
in the input, your Huffman tree will be a bit memory-intensive! :-)

> Cheers
> Rick Jelliffe

ABS

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: Tony Graham <Tony.Graham@S...>

• References:
  • RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>
  • Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• Next by Date: Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• Previous by thread: Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• Next by thread: Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread