Bob Foster wrote:
> I don't think so.c Did you look at the sample he posted?
>
> > Every one of the XML data elements had this tagging structure:
> > <Row>
> > <Cell><Data ss:Type="Number">1</Data></Cell>
> > </Row>
> >
> > In contrast, the CSV had this structure: 1,
>
> Since the "more information" in the XML, precious little that it adds,
> is identical for every data value, the XML format has approximately
> the same entropy as the CSV file. This looks more like a failure of
> the compression algorithm.
whoops. do we know what the compression algorithm was? and was that
really the structure or just a summary of the structure?
rick
>
> Bob Foster
>
> Rick Marshall wrote:
>
>> all you've done is shown that the entropy of the xml file is
>> significantly lower than the csv file. that would mean it carries
>> significantly more information and as others have pointed out, when
>> inspecting the xml, this is indeed the case.
>>
>> put another way the correct interpretation of your experiment is that
>> the ratio of the compressed file sizes points to a significant
>> difference in information content. the csv file and the xml file
>> aren't the same stuff.
>>
>> rick
>
>
>
