- From: Dennis Sosnoski <dms@sosnoski.com>
- Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 01:38:33 -0800
- To: Silvia.De.Castro.Garcia@esa.int
- CC: "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net>, public-xml-binary@w3.org
Silvia.De.Castro.Garcia@esa.int wrote: > > Yes, of course. > I could like to know more or less how much bigger is a XML file from > its equivalent in binary format. > This will depend on the data, as others have said, and on the packing efficiency of the binary format. My own estimate based on the work I've done for the XBIS (http://www.xbis.org) XML encoding format is that you could expect to see somewhere in the range of 6:1 to 15:1 for optimal binary representations over text; you can get higher, but only if the original text document has been basically designed to waste bandwidth (long element and attribute names with very short content, lots of indentation, short documents with lots of long namespaces, etc.). Look at it this way: Binary formats will basically generally preserve text string data as text, while using binary representations for ints, floats, etc. For numbers this means you may save about half the space of the original text form, while general text will be the same size (except for enumerations, where you can use a much more compact index number in place of the text values). The rest of the savings just come from eliminating all the markup in the document. - Dennis -- Dennis M. Sosnoski Enterprise Java, XML, and Web Services Training and Consulting http://www.sosnoski.com Redmond, WA 425.885.7197
Received on Sunday, 7 November 2004 09:48:11 UTC