Lists Home |
Date Index |
Alaric B. Snell wrote:
> My point was
> about people comparing gzipped XML with $binary_format and then saying "See?
> Why bother with the binary format? gzipped XML is smaller!".
> My counterthrust being that the non-gzipped binary format will be much less
> resource intensive to process, and not much more resource intensive to
> transmit over the Internet; and if the latter is a real problem then gzipped
> binary will be smaller and easier to process than gzipped xml, if you can
> afford to go around gzipping things.
Oh I see, sorry I hadn't understood what your point was addressing. It is fairly
rare that bin-xml will be larger than the gzip'd XML. Usually that's the worst
case scenario (schema-less bin-xml will often produce results within -/+3% of
gzip and it hasn't been optimised yet).
And of course you're right that when worst case does happen, there's still
decoding speed, streaming, etc.
Robin Berjon <email@example.com>
Research Engineer, Expway http://expway.fr/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488