[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Massive Content-Type definition ideas & Gopher

1993-06-07 16:21:11
At  6:05 PM 6/7/93 +22312049, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
However, I *do* agree with the general sentiment that structured
objects will probably have their own type-specific compression.

Personally, I think that the only types that really *need* compression are
things like audio and video, which can be so arbitrarily large and for
which the clever compressor can get such huge gains.  And, as Valdis says,
these tend to have the compression built-in anyway.

I don't see a big win in compressing garden-variety, normal-sized stuff.

I know you never have enough bandwidth or storage, but the ever-increasing
amounts of both seem to me to make 50% or so compression of ordinary things
not so very important.  Especially in light of the fact that slow links are
increasingly made with modems with built-in compression for whom things on
the order of LZ are irrelevant.  And then there's external-body, which is
of course the ultimate in compression technology.

Personally, I'm quite willing to can the performance gains of compression
for the interoperability gains of no compression at all (remember, not
everyone can just exec("gunzip")).

(Shall I duck now?)

Steve Dorner, Qualcomm Inc.
Oldthinkers unbellyfeel IngSoc.