nwoh at software-ag.de
Fri Apr 16 16:57:20 BST 1999
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Spreitzer [SMTP:spreitze at parc.xerox.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 1999 3:31 PM
> To: 'Hutchison, Nigel'; xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: ASN.1
> Nigel Hutchison wrote: [[
> I would have thought that the best way of dealing with this issue is to
> a "pleasant" syntax which was easy to process and implement another layer
> to compress the payload for transmission.
> Best in some contexts, but not all. The compression layer has runtime
> costs, in both code and memory footprint, and processing time. In some
> contexts (e.g., very resource-constrained items like cell phones and Palm
> Pilots), these costs can be significant.
[Nigel Hutchison] I had some experience recently in trying to devise a RPC
XML DTD which was nice and compact. So I did also sorts of tricks with short
tag names, repetition conventions etc etc. This had the effect of
iincreasing the creation and parsing code significantly. I imagine that
there is a considerable footprint and CPU penalty is this optimisation. II
also found the prospect of testing and debugging this quite daunting. I
then realised that when I send and receive XML documents via my analogue
modem they are effectively compressed and decompressed by the hardware - so
I was wasting my time (in that scenario at least). I would have thought that
all cellphones would do compression and decompression when they send and
receive data - is that not so?
I also found out that Mainframes have firmware supporting LZ compression
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Xml-dev