Lists Home |
Date Index |
3/27/2002 12:53:59 AM, Mike Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Mike Champion wrote:
>> In general, though, you would be well-advised to not try to compress
>> arbitrary text better than gzip can. You'll fail.
>http://sources.redhat.com/bzip2/index.html is gradually gaining wider
>acceptance and distribution. I'd say it's where gzip was in 1993-94. It's a
>little more CPU intensive but is also consistently better than gzip.
Sorry, I was using "gzip" in a vague way to represent modern compression
libraries. My assertion -- which is just my sense of
the previous discussions, not a competent professional opinion --
was that it's unlikely that a "binary XML" scheme would compress
data significantly better than an off the shelf text compression algorithm.