[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: An unclear point with W3C XML 1.0 Specification
* david.lyon@c... <david.lyon@c...> [2005-01-06 08:37]: > Hi Harold, > > > In XML 1.0, we have a larger file with no type information > > > and in the computergrid format, we have type information as > > > well as a saving of around 35% or 2,680,000 bytes. > > It's smaller, though somehow I doubt that's important.... > Well, it can be important in a business context. People in > business don't have unlimited time. If a pricelist or any > document takes too long to load up... they'll simply > give the ctrl-alt-delete and give up. They have no love > for the computers, I can assure you. Let's /pretend/ that there's a desire to compress the XML for transmission, and that a conventional compression algorithm is too, uh, expenisve, or something. Can't the savings David seeks be obtained by using a name pool for the tags? You know, as they go by, assign them a number, and put the number and XML name in a map? Assuming that the XML document is not some degenate with an indefinate tag vocabulary, this would probably make his document even smaller, using XML. If I've said something blasphimous, tell me. I'm not trying to make this thread worse. Why I ask, is that, I see David designing this new syntax to eliminate a few tag names and attributes, and I don't see why one would care about the length of the name of a /symbol/. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan@e...
|
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
|