Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Mike Sharp <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 15:40:29 -0700
A WAP gateway does a binary tokenizing compression bit on the original WML, that
results in astonishing compression. Don't know how that applies to your
comments, but anecdotally, I've seen (and heard about) pretty good compression
simply by using HTTP 1.1 and turning compression on. Obviously, this doesn't
help if the XML transport isn't over HTTP (semaphore, anyone?).
I'd be curious what people think about it--without, as you say, involving the
wire protocol. Is it really necessary to map a specific token to a specific
element (for example)? I suppose that it would allow a user to de-tokenize the
document, returning it to some semblance of readability. But this could be done
in a particular implementation, if needed, by referencing some external document
map, couldn't it?
Of course, the tokenized XML gets tricky if there are external schemas, DTD's or
other XML,..how do you map the elements in the schema to the same elements in
the XML, after they've been tokenized? Or did I miss the point...?
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org> on 09/26/2000 01:01:00 PM
cc: (bcc: Mike Sharp/Lante)
Subject: Binary XML
Raising an old horse, possibly dead:
Has a standard XML binary token set,
possibly based on the InfoSet to
enable application to different
XML vocabularies been created?
Or is the thinking still that
this side of the wireless protocols,
zipping/unzipping is still sufficient
given modem support?
Intergraph Public Safety
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h