[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
* Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com> [2005-01-06 16:31]:
> > The W3C XML Binary Characterization Working Group has the unenviable
> > task of helping W3C decide whether we should be in the business of
> > specifying some sort of efficient way to interchange XML that's
> > different from gzip that HTTP can already use.
>
> I think they (not really we, I don't do much:) are actually doing
> much better then that. There are three major documents:
> Use cases -- who would benefit from binary xml and why,
> and what restrictions they place on the format
> (e.g., must both sides know the schema?)
> Properties -- characteristics to consider for an encoding
> (e.g., can you sign it, do random-access, etc)
> Measurements -- how to apply the above two and get a weighted
> score
>
> Anyone interested in the *concept* of binary XML should really take a look
> at these documents.
Thank you. That was a past and future direction of mine.
I didn't mean to start a discussion of compression, however.
Mine was a noobish question, really, like, am I missing something?
If the OP is concerned about size. I was wondering why
compression wasn't an option. It seemed like he was saying that
all these tags take to long to process, download, or some such,
but I know that symbol table can fix that.
You don't have to try and fix the langauge. Maybe I'm being
naive, but I thought the problem analysis of the OP was naive.
--
Alan Gutierrez - alan@engrm.com
|
