• From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@t...>
• To: "Elliotte Harold" <elharo@m...>,"Stephen Green" <stephen.green@b...>
• Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:18:10 -0000

Original Message From: "Elliotte Harold" <elharo@m...>
> Stephen Green wrote:
>> Hi Elliotte
>>
> I specifically said the Microsoft Office binary format. I have not tested 
> the new Microsoft XML format so I don't know how it is size wise. However, 
> their old binary formats are larger than the OpenOffice formats. Just open 
> any Word file in OpenOffice, save it in OpenOffice, unzip it, and compare. 
> You can see for yourself.

Don't know about the new MS XML format, but I did a quick test with Word 
2003 on a randomly selected document:

.doc version: 115,712 bytes
.xml version: 205,102 bytes

Odt size from Open Office: 26,557 bytes

From these results we can confidently and emphatically conclude not a lot 
really!

Other than perhaps it's best not to consider the Word format as the 
benchmark for binary coding efficiency.

I don't think you could ever accuse Microsoft with being economical with 
their file formats.

:-)

Pete.
--
=============================================
Pete Cordell
Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
for XML to C++ data binding visit
http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx
(or http://www.xml2cpp.com)
=============================================

• References:
  • Re: Re: [ubl-dev] Top 10 uses of XML in 2007
    • From: "Stephen Green" <stephen.green@b...>
  • Re: Re: [ubl-dev] Top 10 uses of XML in 2007
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>