-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Yes, but both BZ2 and GZIP are very good at working with repetitive strings. I haven't looked much at the EBML, but my impression is that the XML file will be much more compressable than the EBML, and if the XML is larger than the EBML uncompressed is completely irrelevant.
XML has the extra advantage of being a standard with several implementations on different platforms and in different languages which has to count for something. There are plenty BZ2 and GZIP implementations available aswell.

Cheers

- -janvidar-

On Friday 23 January 2004 11:46, Jernej Simončič wrote:

On Friday, January 23, 2004, 10:28:47, Yves BLUSSEAU wrote:
> Yes, but with EBML we don't need to compress the data.
> We can exchange the datas directly.

Let's see: my filelist is 369kB uncompressed. If we start using (EB|X)ML, I
imagine it'll only become bigger, due to added data (actually, if it'd only
carry the same information as is in the list now [filenames and sizes],
EBML might be a bit smaller). No matter which compression you use, the
filelist will become smaller, and that is the whole point - have as small
filelists as possible, which carry as much data as possible. It's always
faster to upload 85kB than 369kB. (This reminds me, did anybody look into
7Z for compression :)

--
begin  .sig
< Jernej Simoncic >< http://deepthought.ena.si/ >

It ain't necessarily so.
       -- Gershwin's Law
end

- -- - -janvidar-

Dj Offset / QuickDC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAEPlCMLjmoUcyZAoRAo0gAKCKbrxxFtIHjm3lJooPqx1eN45VjwCfaadq
G6/kfceiP9idpB2JgfUVpQQ=
=2PVN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----