- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:18:57 +0900
- To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: "John Cowan" <cowan@ccil.org>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "W3C-TAG Group WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
David Orchard (31 oct. 2007 - 08:30) :
> The EXI WG did a huge amount of measurement work, referenced in my
> original message as
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-exi-measurements-20070725/.
> Section 9.1.3 shows the Processing Efficiency Analysis Details
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-exi-measurements-20070725/#Ax-details-pe
>
> Out of curiosity Karl and John, did you not see this section or
> does the
> section not address your needs? I made an assertion that the document
> is too detailed for any but the most diligent reader so you can offer
> your own data points on that.
Ah excellent.
Hmm that would be cool to have id on images :)
<p><img src="summary-processing-encoding-sax-document.png"
width="907"
height="621" alt="Encoding summary: Document class"
title="Encoding summary: Document class" /> </p>
I see in this graph XML, XML.gz and different techniques Xebu, FXDI,
etc.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-exi-measurements-20070725/summary-
processing-encoding-sax-document.png
It seems to show in the graph, that there is no benefits over XML.gz.
Please stand me corrected, if I misinterpret the graph. I was also
wondering if XML+gzip performances compared to other were due to
compression algorithm.
Using the same algorithm for EXI and gzip, are there differences of
performances.
Interesting article too
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-matters13.html
--
Karl Dubost - W3C
http://www.w3.org/QA/
Be Strict To Be Cool
Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2007 00:19:24 UTC