Sorry, it seems that I misundestood you, I thought you were suggesting to gzip XML files (and those do compress well). What you are proposing is more or less equivalent to the binary encoding.
Michael Richard Fateman wrote: > I see no reason to uncompress to XML. Presumably the parse tree that > one gets from XML > can be stored in a compressed form on disk and recreated in memory, > without re-parsing. > I assume that is what Lisp FASL does: builds up the appropriate > symbol table and specifies > the creation of links, and a simple assembler. > > The only time one would need to use XML is when dealing with a program > that only knows > XML as text string, or perhaps when dealing with a human programmer, > for whom XML was designed > as some kind of external interchange format. > > RJF > > Michael Kohlhase wrote: >> Richard Fateman wrote: >> >>> One of the obvious attributes of the notation developed by OM, and >>> one that it shares with XML, is "it compresses well". ;) >>> >> while that is good for disk space and network bandwidth, does not really >> help for processing. If we have to uncompress to XML, we still have the >> large parsing job and the large DOM objects in memory :-( >> >> Michael >> >>> RJF >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Om mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om >>> >> >> > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Dr. Michael Kohlhase, Office: Research 1, Room 62 Professor of Computer Science Campus Ring 12, School of Engineering & Science D-28759 Bremen, Germany Jacobs University Bremen* tel/fax: +49 421 200-3140/-493140 [email protected] http://kwarc.info/kohlhase skype: m.kohlhase * on Sabbatical in Auckland (NZ) until VII/2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
