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

Re: Faster processing without schemas? (was Re: Micr

• To: <bob@w...>
• Subject: Re: Faster processing without schemas? (was Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
• From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 21:04:56 -0500
• Cc: "'Alessandro Triglia'" <sandro@m...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <009901c3af07$b6cc4ca0$650aa8c0@BOBDEV>
• References: <009901c3af07$b6cc4ca0$650aa8c0@BOBDEV>

On Nov 19, 2003, at 8:43 PM, Bob Wyman wrote:

> 	Given that ASN.1 can address the "no schema necessary"
> requirements, the compression requirements, the speed of parsing
> requirements, and the SAX2 support requirements, what other reason
> could there be for not accepting it?
>
Concrete evidence of the costs and benefits would help.  Let's say for 
the sake of argument that you've convinced me-- what would I [actually, 
you volunteered, Trevor :-) ] have to do to test this out with real 
data in my environment?   Are there reasonably priced or eval versions 
of the ASN.1 tools that would support this kind of thing available?  
And are the standards for describing the XML infoset in ASN.1 at all 
mature?  And how interesting are the "interesting" questions referred 
to in your previous message, if one forgets about the alleged 
optimizations obtainable if one does know the application schema?

• References:
  • RE: Faster processing without schemas? (was Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Faster processing without schemas? (was Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
• Next by Date: XUL Alliance Wiki Wiki Now Live
• Previous by thread: RE: Faster processing without schemas? (was Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
• Next by thread: Re: Faster processing without schemas? (was Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread