Paul McNett wrote: > MB Software Solutions General Account wrote: > > XML is a storage format, convenient because it is human and machine > readable and > editable. But the first thing you should do when working with an XML format > file is > to convert the relevant parts to a native data structure, and only convert it > back to > XML when saving back to disk. > > When working with web services that expect XML, you have to comply, > obviously, but if > you are controlling both ends don't use XML, at least without compressing: it > is > overkill and wasteful of resources. > Which begs the question. How does compressed XML compare with binary? Does the ease of use compensate the xtra waste (compressed of course)? And finally, is compressed XML standard or people don't bother with it?
_______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
