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

Re: SD1 - Proposal: allow in valid XML-Documents only

From: len bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 19:31:00 -0500
Message-ID: <338393C4.2130@hiwaay.net>
To: Gavin Nicol <gtn@eps.inso.com>
CC: pflynn@curia.ucc.ie, w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Gavin Nicol wrote:
> 
> To test this, I performed another little experiment. I created
> a 1024x1024 table of (random, integer, small) numeric data in both
> comma delimited, and xml form, and then compressed both files.
> The results follow:
> 
> Before compression:
>       foo.txt 11,873,460
>       foo.xml 17,123,519
> 
>       Markup adds about 44% to the size of the data.
> 
> After compression (using gzip):
>       foo.txt.gz 5,323,235
>       foo.xml.gz 5,704,385
> 
>       markup adds about 7% to the compressed size.

Gavin, doesn't this look pretty much like the arguments 
in VRML about the binary formats in which it was decided 
that modems and gzips did the job about as well with 
regards to transmission size.  I don't think I buy 
the "transmission size will be a hazy memory" argument 
because even where complete infrastructure change is 
needed (why not dump TCP/IP while at it?), it won't 
happen too quick and in all of the places XML should 
be able to reach.  I think it likely to happen to 
the well-heeled in the short term, but that's life.

OTH, reduction of end tagging just isn't an issue with 
enough arguments one way or another to convince me 
that it requires a lot of time right now.  I think it 
should be reconsidered in XML 2.0 if there is 
sufficient evidence it gives the application vendors 
grief (such as, they ignore it and do it anyway).

BTW:  On conformance.  Anyone looking at that issue 
now should look at Mary Brady's site for VRML 2.0 
at NIST.  Top marks!

len
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 1997 20:31:23 UTC

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