RE: "Binary XML" proposals

[Al Snell <alaric@alaric-snell.com>]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Christopher R. Maden wrote:

> As you noted, any binary XML format must contain exactly as much 
> information as the text form. 

Wrong. Exactly as much *useful* information. The binary format can miss
out a whole load of redundant cruft that helps fleshlings follow the plot,
but has to be located and discarded by a computer.

> That means that a sufficiently good 
> compression algorithm combined with the text form will be as compact as the 
> directly binary form. 

Only if the compression algorithm knows enough about XML to know which
bits can be ignored. Which is what I'm proposing, basically.

> On the other hand, if I get "XML", I can open it, 
> examine it, and in the absence of any other information, take a pretty good 
> guess at its meaning (as Walter Perry is so fond of pointing out).  If I 
> get compressed data in some well-known form, like gzip, I can uncompress it 
> pretty easily.  If I get Al's Binary Structure Format, what the heck do I 
> do with it?  The drawbacks seem prohibitive and the benefits minimal.

Dude, we covered this point... read the thread!

> 
> -Chris
> 

ABS

-- 
                               Alaric B. Snell
 http://www.alaric-snell.com/  http://RFC.net/  http://www.warhead.org.uk/
   Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software