Re: LANG: VRML 1.x Binary Format Proposal

Mark Pesce ([email protected])
Wed, 31 May 95 13:20:24 -0700


At 12:49 PM 5/31/95 -0700, Mitra wrote:
>At 6:55 PM 5/31/95, Mark Waks wrote:
>>Mitra points out that, for small files, there may be drawbacks to
>>compression. This may well be true (wouldn't even be surprising), but
>>is it important? I don't *think* we're talking about replacing the
>>existing format, just adding alternatives. Am I incorrect? Is anyone
>>actually proposing that we we move to *only* a binary format? Or, for
>>that matter, *requiring* compression?
>
>No - what I'm trying to point out is that the case of lots of small files
>may hurt our bandwidth as much as the big files, in which case a binary
>format would be pretty easy to handle whereas launching gzip costs time and
>for really small files doesnt gain us much.

It seems reasonable that the compression utility could be embedded into the
VRML file creator; in a similar manner, the decompression utility could be
embedded into the VRML file parser. Given this - there's no clear reason to
use GZIP, is there? - there should be no process overhead associated with
sending smaller files versus sending larger files.

There has been some question as to the relevance of this entire thread;
download time is very important for the universe of VRML users who will be
purusing our sites in the next 6 - 12 months. Saving 30 - 50% over and
above normal compression techniques by using a comprehensive
tokenizaion/numeric representation/compression scheme is therefore a
worthwhile goal.

I have almost always used Internet over a 14.4 Kbps dialup SLIP (TIA) line -
as I am now. It has made me acutely conscious of file download times, and
has thoroughly convinced me that we really do need to attack this problem in
a substantial manner.

Mark