[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????

• To: Karl Waclawek <karl@w...>
• Subject: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:59:27 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <007301c2dcdc$1933dba0$9e539696@citkwaclaww2k>
• Organization: Expway
• References: <OF047F14BF.0A3C2919-ONCA256CD8.00031C17@f...> <E18nbOK-0004gi-00@c...> <007301c2dcdc$1933dba0$9e539696@citkwaclaww2k>
• Reply-to: robin.berjon@e...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2) Gecko/20021126

Karl Waclawek wrote:
> For me, the main question where I have difficulty is to decide
> what the difference would be other than loosing human readability.

The thread's been there before. It usually falls into the expected tarpit: some 
people will say that text is human-readable, others will say that it depends on 
the encoding (UTF-16 on a US-ASCII box, gzip, etc), others still will hold the 
point of view that anything that has a viewer is human readable, be it a JPEG 
with an image viewer or text with a text editor. After increasingly specious 
arguments, the thread dies off.

> Let's assume we would have had a binary XML specification from
> the beginning, everything basically the same, just binary streaming format,
> but same Infoset, same APIs for reporting XML content.
> What would be the difference? For the programmer? For the platforms?

It would be horrible. Quite simply horrible. But then, it would never have taken 
off so we wouldn't be discussing it.

Binary XML is a contradiction in adjecto. That's why I'm anti-binxml: simply 
because there is no such thing as "Binary XML". Binary Infosets however are 
another story completely, and much more interesting :)

-- 
Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
Research Engineer, Expway        http://expway.fr/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE  8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: Tahir Hashmi <code_martial@s...>
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>

• References:
  • Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: Matthew.Bennett@f...
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>

• Prev by Date: RE: The subsetting has begun
• Next by Date: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Previous by thread: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Next by thread: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread