[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: Derek Denny-Brown <derekdb@m...>
• Subject: Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
• From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>
• Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:34:01 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <075E1759251CCB49ABF05D8F742AFE2704298D39@R...>
• References: <075E1759251CCB49ABF05D8F742AFE2704298D39@R...>
• User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i

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.

> I have yet to hear of any proposed solution which successfully
> balances the different demands. I'm not sure it is possible, without
> creating a homunculus.

Neither am I, which is why W3C has a Working Group to investiate whether
it might be possible, rather than a WG to implement a homunculus :-)

Liam

-- 
Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004weblog items?)
    • From: Oleg Tkachenko <oleg@t...>

• References:
  • RE: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
    • From: "Derek Denny-Brown" <derekdb@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML schema -- specify a relationship between attributes?
• Next by Date: Re: binary XML API and scientific use cases [Re: [ANN] nux-1.0beta2 release
• 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 2004weblog items?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread