[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> In consideration of Elliotte's reply, I went back and looked at the XML
file
> Excel generated. Here's what I found ...
>
> Every one of the XML data elements had this tagging structure:
> <Row>
> <Cell><Data ss:Type="Number">1</Data></Cell>
> </Row>
>
> In contrast, the CSV had this structure: 1,
>
> That's a 50 characters to 1 difference for each data element.
And it's 1 character that says NOTHING. At least with, at a bare minimum, a
<Row> marker and the assumed XML header data (namespace, schemata, etc)
you'd have an idea of where that number fits into some situation.
> So, this benchmark test still points to a huge difference in file size and
> in unzipping and parsing time when you compare a large data array in CSV
> compared to XML.
Only if you use such general purpose markup such as what the XML
import/export function in Excel uses. Your rigged example really doesn't
say much. Here's an alternative perspective, archive that data for 30
years. Come back and try decipherng it if it's a binary or a CSV file.
With all that markup an XML file pretty clearly documents itself. Which one
would be more useful?
Given Excel's use as a general purpose tool it's reasonable to see if making
that sort of data. To refine it any further, especially during this first
iteration of their tool, and amidst considerable market upheaval, would
probably have been a bad idea.
What axe are you looking to grind here? We've got plenty.
-Bill Kearney
Syndic8.com
|
