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

RE: Validation vs performance - was Re: Fast text o

• To: 'Michael Champion' <mc@x...>, 'XML DEV' <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: Validation vs performance - was Re: Fast text output from SAX?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 13:04:44 -0500

That's a task to gather objective measures, so not an open 
invitation to bid 'high performance' without regard to other 
system-wide concerns.  I don't think anyone here is irresponsible 
but we are here to sell systems and high performance is an easy 
sale even if the vehicle is a rough ride.  I don't consider this 
a wasted or ruinous effort.  I support the idea; I want to know 
if it is generalizable or something only some languages need to 
adopt because a slower but generalizable solution will likely 
lose to a faster if application-specific competitor.  As you 
say, just the W3C imprimatur alone won't count for much.

"Make it run.  Make it run fast.  Make it run faster." 
The Dicta of Programming Goodness, circa 1983.

len


From: Michael Champion [mailto:mc@x...]

On Apr 19, 2004, at 1:31 PM, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>
> And again, is a binary characterization WG a mandate to overhaul
> other parts of the system 'while we're at it'.

No, it's " tasked with gathering information about uses cases where the 
overhead of generating, parsing, transmitting, storing, or accessing 
XML-based data may be deemed too great for a particular application, 
characterizing the properties that XML provides as well as those that 
are required by the use cases, and establishing objective, shared 
measurements to help judge whether XML 1.x and alternate (binary) 
encodings provide the required properties."

  It's not like the Good (Bad?) Ol' Days of the W3C where one could 
assume that what came out of a WG would be a de facto standard.  The 
less than overwhelming success of XHTML,  XLink, XSDL, etc. and the 
lack of world domination by SOAP 1.2, DOM 3, etc. should diminish 
concerns that the W3C is somehow leading the world to binary ruin by 
starting this WG, EVEN IF it were to conclude that there are objective, 
measurable benefits of some alternative serialization for some 
important use cases.

The other parts of the system are being sorted out by those 
discontented with the XML status quo, without the advice or consent of 
W3C.

• Prev by Date: Re: Validation vs performance - was Re: Fast text output from SAX?
• Next by Date: Re: Validation vs performance - was Re: Fasttext output from SAX?
• Previous by thread: Re: Validation vs performance - was Re: Fast text output from SAX?
• Next by thread: Lx: compact syntax for XML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread