At 03:53 PM 6/11/01 -0700, you wrote:
>Henry Minsky wrote:
><snip>
> > There is a standard gnu-zip format for compressing SVG files,
> > but I dont know if that is as optimal as some kind of binary
> > standard (which would kind of defeat one of the selling points
> > of SVG, it's easy to debug as XML text).
><snip>
>
>No it doesn't, since the compression is optional and it's trivial to
>convert between compressed and uncompressed forms. There are actually
>two things you can do here - compress the original files, in which
>case the server says that they have a 'content-encoding' of gzip or
>whatever, or have the server compress them on demand ('transfer-
>encoding') for user-agents that say when making a request that they
>support that. In the latter case it's completely transparent to
>content authors.
No I meant that if you used some kind of binary encoding to begin with
instead of XML
(i.e., the "TEXT" element
is encoded as 17, the "transformation" attribute is encoded as 27, etc),
and then compress that,
I wonder if it would be smaller than using GZIP to compress an XML file. It
might be a little
smaller but I was saying that history has shown that using binary encoding
formats like that
makes debugging a nightmare (i.e., EDI).
[ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Tue Jun 12 02:50:54 2001