- From: <winkowski@mitre.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:28:05 -0500
- To: chris@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
- Cc: msc@mitre.org
Chris, I ran across this thread in the www-tag public archives. As the author of one of the references you cite, [5] XML Sizing and Compression Study for Military Wireless Data, I would point out that the paper and presentation can be found at the below links (I think they are publicly available, if not contact me for distribution). It compares approaches (XMill, MPEG-7, gzip, ASN.1-PER, and WBXML) against a sample binary message set. http://www.idealliance.org/papers/xml02/dx_xml02/index/author/ed8776ca16026c 570dea4333a9.html http://www.idealliance.org/papers/xml02/slides/winkowski/winkowski.pdf This subject and debate is of great interest as it parallels our internal discussions. My own view is when it comes to optimizations one size does not fit all. That said, some standardization or recognition of standard solutions would be a step forward. In the best of worlds, I would love to use XML Schema for my message designs and at the same time take advantage of alternate optimized encodings that can be applied to transform the syntax for transmission, storage, or direct machine-to-machine communication when presentation is not an issue. The message specific encoder/decoder would be derived directly from the XML Schema by way of standard functions. In this way only the schema declarations need to be transmitted in plain text. Recipients would be able to automatically derive the decoder based on the schema and the encoder function used. Oh, and just like zip there may be a choice of algorithms applied based on analysis of the input. We found for larger messages sets redundancy based compression outweighed optimized binary serialization of fields and structure. I look forward to the public deliberations. I've address the list in this message but am not subscribed so don't know if it will bounce back. If so please forward as you see fit. - Dan - Daniel G. Winkowski MITRE, 1 Enterprise Parkway, Suite 100, Hampton VA 23666
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 18:05:12 UTC