Actually the W3C binary XML standard when compared to traditional compression standards like Zip is significantly better. The binary conversion process also compresses file.
You might want to read: http://www.w3.org/XML/EXI/ http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-exi-measurements-20070725/ http://www.w3.org/TR/xbc-characterization/#N107D4 BTW, Fast Infoset was not selected by the W3C. On 2/14/08 5:04 PM, "Fabio Forno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Dave Cridland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > I've never been all that convinced about binary XML forms. They work >> > to a degree with the highly fixed XML in, for example, SyncML, and >> > they're pretty good at compressing individual stanza-like objects >> > over SMS for things like OMA EMN (Email Message Notification, or >> > something - I've long since forgotten what these acronyms stand for), >> > but for long-running streams I'm under the impression that studies >> > show it'll be outperformed. >> > >> > So if you're a big fan of Binary XML formats, please bring along your >> > figures. :-) > > Missing the reference, but you should get the best with binary + > compression, however it's not worth the candle, since EXTENSIBLE > binary xml is not easy (there are fast infosets, but the specification > is incredibly complex) and the gain is not so high > > -- > Fabio Forno, Ph.D. > Bluendo srl http://www.bluendo.com > jabber id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
