[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...>
  • Subject: RE: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)
  • From: "Derek Denny-Brown" <derekdb@m...>
  • Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:42:28 -0800
  • Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
  • Thread-index: AcTQ2u4tVszJsykZTU+N05Yhwu2WAgAADnVw
  • Thread-topic: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: XML 2004 weblog items?)

binary xml implementation
> From: Liam Quin [mailto:liam@w...]
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 1:34 PM
> 
> 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.

The problem with that is that it now becomes possible to load invalid
XML.  Yes, that means you are using a non-conformant writer, but when
dealing with data formats designed for interop, the receiver should be
conservative, which means checks.  If it is an error for there to be two
attributes with the same name, then it should either be impossible to
represent, or checked in the reader.  Anything else is asking for
trouble.  That doesn't mean that parsers can't provide options to turn
off expensive checks, just that they should be enabled by default for a
generic implementation.

> > 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 :-)

And I totally concur with others, that spending the time to really do
some serious requirements gathering is key, and am glad to see it
happening.

-derek

PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
 

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.


Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.