• To: 'Tim Bray' <tbray@t...>
• Subject: RE: Data streams
• From: "Stephen E. Beller" <sbeller@n...>
• Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 13:59:05 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <CA8F637E-47B4-11D9-89AB-000A95A51C9E@t...>
• Organization: NHDS, Inc.

Yes, Tim. It was actually "Save as XML Spreadsheet" and generated by Excel
2002.
Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim.Bray@S... [mailto:Tim.Bray@S...] On Behalf Of Tim Bray
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 1:30 PM
To: Stephen E. Beller
Cc: xml-dev@l...
Subject: Re:  Data streams


On Dec 6, 2004, at 10:08 AM, Stephen E. Beller wrote:

> I tried Steven's experiment from a different angle. I filled an Excel 
> XP
> spreadsheet with a single-digit number, saved it in both XML and in a
> comma-delimited text file (CSV). I then compressed both with WinZip 
> and then
> opened both with Excel. Here's what I found:
>
> The XML file was 840MB, the CSV 34MB -- a 2,500% difference
> Compressed, the XML file was 2.5MB, the CSV 0.00015MB (150KB) -- a 
> 1,670%
> difference.

A quick question: was the XML that produced by the built-in Office 2003 
"save as XML"?  -Tim

• References:
  • Re: Data streams
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Data streams
• Next by Date: Re: The XML Backlash
• Previous by thread: Re: Data streams
• Next by thread: Re: Data streams
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread