• To: 'Alan Gutierrez' <alan-xml-dev@e...>
• Subject: XML Compression (Was RE: An unclear point with W3C XML 1.0 Specification)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:29:06 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

The XBRC folks have thoughts on this.

http://www.w3.org/2003/09/xmlap/xml-binary-wg-charter.html

len


From: Alan Gutierrez [mailto:alan-xml-dev@e...]

    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/. 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML Compression (Was RE: An unclear point with W3C XML 1.0 Specification)
    • From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: SAXException, checked, buy why?
• Next by Date: Re: Where are XML types ?
• Previous by thread: Where are XML types ?
• Next by thread: Re: XML Compression (Was RE: An unclear point with W3C XML 1.0 Specification)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread