[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Robin Berjon scripsit:
> > A variety of
> > small-scale studies have shown that general-purpose compression is generally
> > as good as, or better than, some scheme that knows it's compressing XML.
>
> Err, quite the opposite. XMill beats gzip.
This one is news to me, but I'm looking into it now.
> BiM/BiX requires a schema,
Yes: by "knows it's compressing XML" I meant to imply "and doesn't know
anything more than that".
> but there are many ways in which a schema can be deduced, even with just
> a raw document (and it can be done more intelligently than most tools
> that deduces schema information from instances I've seen out there do
> it).
Pointer(s)?
> If by extreme you mean "extremely
> limited compared to your average desktop or server" or "requiring
> extremely big payloads" then you're right, but if you meant "rare" then
> I'm afraid your point doesn't hold: small devices consuming XML are
> crawling all over the place :)
I did mean the former.
> In addition to that, having a single standardized way of binary-encoding
> XML means that industry-specific standard organisations can stop wasting
> their time creating ad hoc binary encodings for their XML data that will
> fall apart with the first need for change, and use tried and shared
> technology instead.
Always a Good Thing.
--
John Cowan jcowan@reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
"In the sciences, we are now uniquely privileged to sit side by side
with the giants on whose shoulders we stand."
--Gerald Holton
|
