Re: Abbreviated Tag Names (ASN.1)

[Peter Jacobi <pj@walter-graphtek.com>]

IMHO there is clear divide between use cases which would profit more 
from a "binary XML external form" (ASN.1 or not) and those better suited 
for general compression:

A) Data a) consisting mostly of numbers, enumerations, bit sets, 
booleans and the like which b) conforms to Schema without #any will 
shrink dramatically with a custom binary encoding.

B) XML instances having large amount of "textual" data and/or some 
#any will better do with gzip, as the custom binary decoding usually can't 
do anything about the redundancy of natural language texts. (And can't 
avaoid coding in the tag and attribute names in the #any part).

Regards,
Peter Jacobi


> Charles Reitzel wrote -
[...]
> Just calling a standard compression library like zip would certainly be
> easier.    A lot depends on how important reducing the byte count in a
> message is.  Remember that the requirements for XML included the statement
> that "terseness" in XML markup is "of minimal importance."