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

RE: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 webl

• To: "Liam Quin" <liam@w...>,"Derek Denny-Brown" <derekdb@m...>
• Subject: RE: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>
• Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:52:31 -0800
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcTQ2xQFo8EIGAaKRAqtsLO4r9nGNQAAeTcA
• Thread-topic: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liam Quin [mailto:liam@w...] 
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 1:34 PM
> To: Derek Denny-Brown
> Cc: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: Re:  Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: 
>  XML 2004 weblog items?)
> 
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 01:09:06PM -0800, Derek Denny-Brown wrote:
> > Most of the CPU cost of parsing is related to the abstract model of 
> > XML, not the text parsing: Duplicate attribute detection, character 
> > checking, namespace resolution/checking. Every binary-xml 
> > implementation I have researched which improves CPU 
> utilization does 
> > so by skipping checks such as these. At that point you are 
> no longer 
> > talking about XML.
> 
> One can do validation in the writer and then plausibly skip 
> the sort of checks you mention in a reader, and still be 
> talking about XML, even with today's textual interchange formats.

Interesting, so if I'm writing an XML Web Service end point I should
trust third parties to do the well-formedness and validity checking as a
"performance enhancement"? Even ignoring the security implications of
this it still seems like a horrible idea. 

--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are ingenious.


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.  

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
    • From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Next by Date: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Previous by thread: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Next by thread: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread