5 ms·
You’re saying that compressed HTML, because it is text, wastes 15% (could be however much, the number doesn’t really matter) over some binary format that would
by philsnow 3y ago
You’re saying that compressed HTML, because it is text, wastes 15% (could be however much, the number doesn’t really matter) over some binary format that would express the same content?
What binary format would/could that be? I’m just not seeing how (if it expresses the same content) it could be smaller than compressed HTML.
- foobazgt 3y agoThey're comparing compressed text vs compressed binary, apples to apples. While text compresses amazingly well, binaries aren't 100% entropic themselves. They usually also benefit from compression. For example, the defacto "executable" format for the Java runtime is a compressed archive (jar file).