Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Dylan Walsh <Dylan.Walsh@Kadius.com>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:35:04 +0100
> From: Mike Sharp [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 11:40 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Binary XML
>A WAP gateway does a binary tokenizing compression bit on the original WML,
>results in astonishing compression.
>I'd be curious what people think about it--without, as you say, involving
>wire protocol. Is it really necessary to map a specific token to a
>element (for example)? I suppose that it would allow a user to de-tokenize
>document, returning it to some semblance of readability. But this could be
>in a particular implementation, if needed, by referencing some external
>map, couldn't it?
While working with WAP a while back, it seemed to me that the binary
compression used was only good at compressing the markup and not the
content. So if you added 1k of text to an element, the file grew by 1k. For
WAP pages, it worked fairly well, but in vocabularies with typically large
amounts of content, it wouldn't be very efficient. Note that this may have
been a feature of the implementation I was using - i.e. the Nokia WAP
toolkit didn't bother compressing element content.
I believe the WAP system has been submitted to the W3C as a general purpose
compressed binary format for XML. Does anyone know whether it uses
compression on the element text, or just on tag names etc.?