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

Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?

• To: rjm@z...
• Subject: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>
• Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:44:00 +0100
• Cc: Mike Champion <mc@x...>, "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <1059081111.4420.39.camel@z...>
• References: <oprstl350fezizxn@localhost> <1059081111.4420.39.camel@z...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624

Rick Marshall wrote:


> i agree with the slow down from parsing xml. it's a much bigger problem,
> than binary or text formats. the need to find the other end of a tag
> before you can really process a tag - and searching for multi byte
> sequences is not well supported in the current generation of processors
> - is i think the main problem.

I think much of that need is driven by the XMLP/SOAP stuff. 
Especially for code that is only interested in acting on the 
headers, but is forced (implicitly) to deal with content. I always 
though SwA was a nice MIMEish way around that, but I believe the 
general thinking atm is that embedded payloads are a Good Thing.

Bill de hÓra

--
Propylon
http://www.propylon.com

• References:
  • Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Next by Date: Re: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Previous by thread: RE: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Next by thread: RE: Binary XML == "spawn of the devil" ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread