[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Abbreviated Tag Names (ASN.1)
- From: Peter Jacobi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:06:59 +0100
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).
> 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."