[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Fri, 2004-04-09 at 16:25, Robin Berjon wrote:
> I've gotten into the (at least occasional) habit of using 'optimised'
> instead of 'binary' because I don't think the WG should presume that the
> solution -- if there is one -- necessarily relies on binarisation (even
> if all tests I've seen thus far makes it look very likely).
As Mike Champion said, optimised alone doesn't mean much (an
optimisation is always done for a specific purpose and depending what
you optimise, an "optimised XML" could be more verbose than XML).
What about "compacted" XML if the target is to optimise for space?
Eric
--
If you have a XML document, you have its schema.
http://examplotron.org
Upcoming XML schema languages tutorial:
- Amsterdam -half day- (18/04/2004) http://masl.to/?P220516D7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
