[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 5:16 PM +0200 4/9/04, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
>What about "compacted" XML if the target is to optimise for space?
The target is an issue of debate. :-) Whether to optimize for space
or speed or both or one at the expense of the other is a big
splitting point. As with almost any optimization issue, a lot depends
on the very specific use case. Some people need space. Some need
speed. Sometimes you can get both. Sometimes doing either one is a
challenge. As usual regular XML makes a nice compromise position for
most use cases.
Even space vs. speed depends on which space and speed. If network
bandwidth and speed are the issues, you can optimize both space and
speed very effectively with gzip. However, that pays a memory space
and CPU speed penalty on both ends of the transmission. Unlike a lot
of the custom proposals though, it's really easy to integrate into
the existing infrastructure, and to configure on a case-by-case
basis, especially if you're using HTTP. It has a much lower impact on
the overall environment than some of the custom binary proposals I've
seen.
I think we may have this set of choices:
1. Minimum size
2. Maximum Speed
3. Interoperable
Pick any one. :-)
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold
elharo@metalab.unc.edu
Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003)
http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA
|
