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

Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative

• To: elharo@m...
• Subject: Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• From: "James Fuller" <james.fuller@o...>
• Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:40:05 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: code_martial@s..., xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <p04330103ba65690e85d6@[192.168.254.4]>
• References: <p04330103ba65690e85d6@[192.168.254.4]>
• Reply-to: james.fuller@o...

> Without any comments, positive or negative, on the idea of binary XML 
> in general or your specific implementation of that idea, I will note 
> that over the last few years I've seen an average of approximately  one
> such binary XML tool per month announced here or elsewhere. To  date,
> none of them have garnered any significant interest or adoption  in the
> community. This may perhaps say something about whether this a 
> frutiful area in which to invest your time.

whats that phrase about the dangers of 'early optimisation'.... the usage 
of binary xml should be seen as an optimisation step, and is directly 
related to some level of critical adoption of xml technologies....  so I 
wouldn't discount it, just put it in its place.

once i've had time to review this binary xml effort, I'll comment on if its 
a well thought out effort.
 
cheers, Jim Fuller

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
    • From: Tahir Hashmi <code_martial@s...>
  • Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• References:
  • Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: rules for XML?
• Next by Date: misunderstanding of XML Schema ?
• Previous by thread: Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• Next by thread: Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread