[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@allette.com.au>
- To: "'XML-DEV'" <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 10:39:01 +1000
If you are worried about file size, then compress your files.
Tags, being short strings commonly used, compress really nicely with
the common compression algorithms out there.
I once did an experiment (to confirm one that Gavin Nicol had done)
using a document with several thousand lines, each with one start-tag,
end-tag pair and no content. I tried compressing this file with
* no minimization
* short end-tags
* end-tag ommission
The uncompressed file was something like 50K. The compressed files
differed by only a few 100bytes from each other. The gains from short
end-tags did not carry over into the compressed versions, and the
compressed versions were so much smaller there seemed little
contest.
Having short-tag ommision can only compress a document by less
than 50% at an improbable maximum (in the case of a document with
not data, not attributes, no white-space, and incredibly long GIs).
Compression is a far better approach.
Rick Jelliffe
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
|
