(Hey, where did that space come from in the subject line?)
On Thu Feb 14 22:06:19 2008, Boyd Fletcher wrote:
1362 byte message strongly typed
WinZip 3.13 times smaller than original
EfficientXML 75.67 times smaller than original
980 byte message loosely type
WinZip 1.6 times smaller than original
Efficient XML 8.45 times smaller than original
21437 byte message
Winzip 6 times smaller
Efficient XML 33 times smaller
Interesting, certainly. My impression has been that binary XML
formats handle cases best where the schema is fixed, and the data is
relatively tightly marked up, and the overall document length is low.
Our data is heavy on the text, and our overall schema varies wildly,
and our documents are quite big.
The Efficient XML Interchange Measurements Note seems to back up this
impression I have:
"The best improvements compared to gzipped XML in the Both case come
for small documents, which also have sufficient schema information,
i.e., the FixML and CBMS groups. Here FXDI and Efficient XML (and
ASN.1 PER in some cases) manage to achieve a clear improvement,
sometimes even under half the size of gzipped XML. For the larger
documents there appears to be no gain over the Document case. For
example, there is no size difference between gzipped XML and any of
the candidates for the Seismic document, in contrast to the Schema
case."
To my mind, the figures and graphs there suggest that improvements
over DEFLATE will be marginal at best for our kind of data.
But I'll do my reading, certainly, as well as getting some figures
for some XMPP session compression using existing mechanisms -
assuming I can. (I vaguely recall that the jabber.org server does
XEP-0138, and I know ours does TLS compression - I could stick
XEP-0138 in it quite quickly I think as a test).
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
