• To: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>, "\"Gerben Rampaart (Casnet Mechelen)\"" <Gerben@C...>
• Subject: Re: XML / HTML Transport size
• From: James Clark <jjc@j...>
• Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:53:44 +0700
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200211181217.HAA13976@m...>
• References: <200211181217.HAA13976@m...>

> A variety
> of small-scale studies have shown that general-purpose compression is
> generally as good as, or better than, some scheme that knows it's
> compressing XML.

Hmmm.  What about

  http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/xmill/

?

James

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML / HTML Transport size
    • From: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@n...>
  • Re: XML / HTML Transport size
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: XML / HTML Transport size
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RDF
• Next by Date: Re: Why RDF is hard
• Previous by thread: Re: XML / HTML Transport size
• Next by thread: Re: XML / HTML Transport size
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread