> At Beduin, we've learned the hard way about how difficult it is to
> render HTML because some tags don't require end tags (in combo with
> the general crappy state of HTML generators). I'd guess that our
> parser is twice as large as it needed to be because of these
> problems. With short end tags, in order for us to render XML, we'd
> have to have a similar amount of code to render broken XML. So
> IMHO, short end tags would make my code larger (though runtime
> memory requirements *might* drop - not sure).
I think that Mark is quite right. Just for interest, here are some
statistics, using Jon Bosak's ot.xml (with CRLF line-ends, and with a
different XML declaration at the top):
With full end tags: 3,880,187 bytes
With short end tags: 3,773,844 bytes (2.7% saving)
Here are the same files compressed with gzip -9 (savings are relative
to the uncompressed version with full end tags):
With full end tags: 994,835 bytes (74.4% saving)
With short end tags: 988,976 bytes (74.5% saving)
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson ak117@freenet.carleton.ca
Microstar Software Ltd. dmeggins@microstar.com
http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dmeggins/