• From: Michael Beddow <mbnospam@m...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:54:11 +0000

on  Thursday, January 18, 2001 12:08 PM
Mark.Papiani wrote

Subject: Textual transmission typically faster?



> I just read p.19 of Brett McLaughin's book, Java and XML (O'Reilly),
> and was a little surprised by the statement:
>
> "Although some binary data formats can be transmitted very
efficiently,
> textual transmissions will typically average out as a faster means
of
> communication".
>
> Could anyone expand on this statement for me, and perhaps supply
> references to any papers/benchmarks that show some results?

I've been to papers where this was indeed explained as a
compressibility issue, and it sort of made sense at the time.

The apparent textual redundancy of xml tagging means
tokenising compressors can really get to work

------------------------------------------
Michael Beddow
http://www.mbeddow.net/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Textual transmission typically faster?
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• References:
  • Textual transmission typically faster?
    • From: Mark.Papiani@u...

• Prev by Date: Textual transmission typically faster?
• Next by Date: Re: Textual transmission typically faster?
• Previous by thread: Textual transmission typically faster?
• Next by thread: Re: Textual transmission typically faster?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread