[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bob Wyman wrote:
> The easiest way to encourage them not to define a *custom*
> binary format is to make it easy for them to use a *standard* binary
> format that interchanges well with code designed to process XML. Of
> course, what I'm suggesting is that by supporting the use of ASN.1
> defined encodings we can get binary/XML interchange and preserve our
> investment in tools like SAX, DOM, etc. This is because the ASN.1
> defined encodings (BER, PER, etc.) provide *lossless* encoding of XML
> data in highly compact binary forms. (I wouldn't be surprised, for
> instance, if a typical word documents ended up being less than 10% of
> the original size if encoded in PER...)
> I must say that I'm very concerned about the impact that Word
> documents in XML are going to have on the whole "XML movement." While
> people have grumbled about XML's size for a long time, most people
> haven't been exposed to the elephantine monsters that result when you
> convert Word to XML. ("The Word document that ate my disk...") This is
> going to start a whole series of companies and projects that will
> "address the problem of XML storage compression."... Unfortunately,
> ...
As a matter of fact, the default DOC format is extremely inefficient
anyway. I just saved a short document to XML format, and that *reduced*
the size by half. Your mileage may vary.
Julian
--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
|
