W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > May 1997

Re: SD1 - Short End Tags [fmt]

From: Matthew Fuchs <matt@wdi.disney.com>
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 10:22:33 -0700
Message-Id: <9705201022.ZM21816@scrumpox.rd.wdi.disney.com>
To: Eduardo Gutentag <Eduardo.Gutentag@eng.sun.com>, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
It is so much easier to talk to oneself than to others! :)

I have to disagree with this.  It is true that if I am sending a database
extract to myself (i.e., my java server app to the java applet I sent to the
client), then I can do this.  However, if it is your server app to _my_ client
app which is receiving answers from 8 other servers simultaneously, I would
much rather have 8 versions of:

> <author>
> 	<firstname>foo</firstname>
> 	<lastname>bar</lastname>
> </author>

than have each server alpha-rename the tags to different incomprehensible tags,
especially when some might switch lastname and firstname.

Matthew Fuchs
matt@wdi.disney.com

On May 20,  9:54am, Eduardo Gutentag wrote:
> Subject: Re: SD1 - Short End Tags [fmt]
>
> > I'd turn it around and say if space/transfer volume savings is so
> > important, use short tag names and compression schemes.  Compression
> > and decompression are much simplier, smaller, and more ubiquitous
> > applications than XML-parsing, GI-inserting applications.
> >
> > paul
> >
>
> I must side with Paul (and not just because I'm a desperate hacker in
> no matter what language I happen to deal with;-). A 40% reduction achieved
> just by shortening end tags indicates that there is more tagging than
> content. Surely a database application can deal with
> <A>
> 	<b>foo</b>
> 	<c>bar</c>
> </A>
>
> as easily as with
>
> <author>
> 	<firstname>foo</firstname>
> 	<lastname>bar</lastname>
> </author>
>
> (and there you have a 46% reduction without having to change the spec...)
>
> Eduardo
>
>-- End of excerpt from Eduardo Gutentag



-- 
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 1997 13:21:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:26 UTC