W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-binary@w3.org > November 2004

Re: question: Increasing factor for XML vs Binary

From: Stephen D. Williams <sdw@lig.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:32:45 -0500
Message-ID: <41A3824D.2060805@lig.net>
To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Cc: Kuo Kan Liang <kkliang@ntu.edu.tw>, Silvia.De.Castro.Garcia@esa.int, public-xml-binary@w3.org
The advantages of chunking are probably mostly solution-specific rather 
than application specific.
In a format that supports incremental update but avoids overhead by not 
being heap based, explicit chunking allows tuning of the cost for 
insertion because it limits the maximum amount of data that needs to be 
moved.

Chunking could also help a format to be more streamable and have lower 
and more predictable buffer usage.  It is even conceivable that explicit 
chunking could directly support aspects of signing, corruption 
detection, and error recovery.

Deltas might help with some of the scenarios mentioned.

sdw

Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:

> I think that there are a number of use cases where chunking is not 
> going to help.  Sending location and map data to mobile phones is 
> probably one.  The issue is how many bits, not how many pieces they 
> come in. The floating point data usage case from the energy industry 
> (which I contributed) is definitely not going to be helped by 
> chunking.  That would only make things worse -- it would not address 
> the primary issues whatsoever.
>  
> I don't know what subclass of usage cases chunking would address, but 
> my impression is that it is fairly limited.
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* public-xml-binary-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-xml-binary-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Kuo Kan Liang
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 04, 2004 8:12 AM
> *To:* Silvia.De.Castro.Garcia@esa.int
> *Cc:* public-xml-binary@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: question: Increasing factor for XML vs Binary
>
> Hi,
>
> Following is a private message to me from a kind person.
> Maybe I should wait for him to write this, but I wish to share what he 
> told me to you.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Why is XML unnatural here?  I can see that the XML documents could 
> become  very large, but a binary XML representation is only likely to 
> win you an  improvement of 10-30, and that only sounds like a short 
> reprieve to me.   You have have to end up chunking the data somehow, 
> and once you do that,  the chunked XML could be quite manageable.
>
> [Some text deleted]
>
>     Cheers,
>         Tony.
> -- 
> Anthony B. Coates
> London Market Systems Limited
> 33 Throgmorton Street, London, EC2N 2BR
> http://www.londonmarketsystems.com/
> mailto:abcoates@londonmarketsystems.com
> Mobile/Cell: +44 (79) 0543 9026
> [MDDL Editor (Market Data Definition Language), http://www.mddl.org/]
> [FpML Arch WG Member (Financial Products Markup Language),  
> http://www.fpml.org/]
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Silvia.De.Castro.Garcia@esa.int wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>         I would like to know the estimation order of the increasing 
>> factor for the XML format respect to the equivalent binary product, I 
>> mean, which is the order of the overload that will supose using XML 
>> instead of binary format?
>>
>> Thank you very much,
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Silvia de Castro.
>>


-- 
swilliams@hpti.com http://www.hpti.com Per: sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 20147-4622 AIM: sdw
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 18:31:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 1 December 2005 00:07:42 GMT