Someone asked about a link to the WAP Binary XML specification, here it is:
http://www.w3.org/TR/wbxml/
I was thinking that for large XML structures moving to binary XML might be
useful. The encode and decode times for a short message or stream might
not warrent using something like binary XML or similar compression technology.
Dave L
Jens Alfke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 05/22/2001 01:02:03 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: Jens Alfke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: (David Lucek/MW/US/3Com)
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Binary XML useful for Jabber?
On Tuesday, May 22, 2001, at 09:29 AM, Thomas Charron wrote:
> There is also the fact that by leaving the XML as ASCII, it leaves
> the
> transmission hardware to actually compress the data. Binary data is
> much
> harder to compress then raw ASCII.
Yes, but the binary data would already be compressed much further than
ASCII could be. For example, the tokenization would compress a long
attribute name like "jabber:iq:conference" down to something like two
bytes.
One has to assume that the WAP people considered general compression vs.
tokenization, and that they went with the latter because it offered
better compression.
?Jens
On Tuesday, May 22, 2001, at 09:29 AM, Thomas Charron wrote:
There is also the fact that by leaving the XML as ASCII, it leaves the
transmission hardware to actually compress the data. Binary data is much
harder to compress then raw ASCII.
Yes, but the binary data would already be compressed much further than ASCII
could be. For example, the tokenization would compress a long attribute name
like "jabber:iq:conference" down to something like two bytes.
One has to assume that the WAP people considered general compression vs.
tokenization, and that they went with the latter because it offered better
compression.
*Jens
