- From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@eps.inso.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 09:28:08 -0400
- To: pflynn@curia.ucc.ie
- CC: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
>The more I look at the arguments, the more convinced I am that >XML is not likely to be a meaningful format for distributing >database-resident bulk data. This shouldn't surprise anyone: it >was never designed to do this. You want to ship bulk data, you >send a Java applet followed by a gzipped datafile, and let the >applet generate XML locally for the display. I do not think this to be the case. You can use XML to mark up database records for distribution/interchange, in which case, one would (intuitively) expect that any compression applied would result in a file little different, because the markup would tend to form a very regular input pattern (easily compressed). 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.
Received on Wednesday, 21 May 1997 09:29:31 UTC