[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Hutchison, Nigel" <nwoh@software-ag.de>
- To: xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 16:55:44 +0200
Title: RE: ASN.1
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Spreitzer [SMTP:spreitze@parc.xerox.com]
Sent: Friday, April 16, 1999 3:31 PM
To: 'Hutchison, Nigel'; xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Subject: RE: ASN.1
Nigel Hutchison wrote: [[
I would have thought that the best way of dealing with this issue is to use
a "pleasant" syntax which was easy to process and implement another layer
to compress the payload for transmission.
]]
Best in some contexts, but not all. The compression layer has runtime
costs, in both code and memory footprint, and processing time. In some
contexts (e.g., very resource-constrained items like cell phones and Palm
Pilots), these costs can be significant.
[Nigel Hutchison] I had some experience recently in trying to devise a RPC XML DTD which was nice and compact. So I did also sorts of tricks with short tag names, repetition conventions etc etc. This had the effect of iincreasing the creation and parsing code significantly. I imagine that there is a considerable footprint and CPU penalty is this optimisation. II also found the prospect of testing and debugging this quite daunting. I then realised that when I send and receive XML documents via my analogue modem they are effectively compressed and decompressed by the hardware - so I was wasting my time (in that scenario at least). I would have thought that all cellphones would do compression and decompression when they send and receive data - is that not so?
I also found out that Mainframes have firmware supporting LZ compression these days.
Regards
Nigel Hutchison
Mike
|