• To: "Mike Champion" <mc@x...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• From: "Paul Spencer" <xml-dev@b...>
• Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:52:42 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <oprstl350fezizxn@localhost>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@x...]
> Sent: 24 July 2003 16:18

>What is the evidence that
>'binary XML' can be faster or smaller in realistic scenarios.

One of my customers had been using a highly optimized (in their opinion)
binary format for certain message types for many years. The IT department
wanted to go XML, the users didn't for performance reasons.

They tried XML down the wire with very simple compression and found that
they were transferring data faster than previously.

This will have to stay as anecdotal as I cannot describe the application
further. Perhaps it would be a good subject for a paper with suitable
permissions.

Regards

Paul Spencer
Director
Boynings Consulting Ltd
XML for e-Government
http://www.boynings.co.uk

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: Brian Stafford <brian@s...>
  • Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: Alaric B Snell <alaric@a...>

• References:
  • Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Longhorn, SVG and YAXUIL
• Next by Date: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Previous by thread: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Next by thread: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread