Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
* david.lyon@c... <david.lyon@c...> [2005-01-06 08:37]:
> Hi Harold,
> > > In XML 1.0, we have a larger file with no type information
> > > and in the computergrid format, we have type information as
> > > well as a saving of around 35% or 2,680,000 bytes.
> > It's smaller, though somehow I doubt that's important....
> Well, it can be important in a business context. People in
> business don't have unlimited time. If a pricelist or any
> document takes too long to load up... they'll simply
> give the ctrl-alt-delete and give up. They have no love
> for the computers, I can assure you.
Let's /pretend/ that there's a desire to compress the XML for
transmission, and that a conventional compression algorithm is
too, uh, expenisve, or something.
Can't the savings David seeks be obtained by using a name pool
for the tags? You know, as they go by, assign them a number, and
put the number and XML name in a map? Assuming that the XML
document is not some degenate with an indefinate tag vocabulary,
this would probably make his document even smaller, using XML.
If I've said something blasphimous, tell me. I'm not trying to
make this thread worse.
Why I ask, is that, I see David designing this new syntax to
eliminate a few tag names and attributes, and I don't see why
one would care about the length of the name of a /symbol/.
--
Alan Gutierrez - alan@e...
|
