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

Re: Well-formed BinXML

• To: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• Subject: Re: Well-formed BinXML
• From: Kevin Jones <kjones@s...>
• Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:35:38 +0000
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <E1CuZIr-0005Yn-00@u...>
• Organization: Sarvega Inc
• References: <E1CuZIr-0005Yn-00@u...>
• Reply-to: kjones@s...
• User-agent: KMail/1.6.2

On Friday 28 January 2005 16:48, Michael Kay wrote:
>
> One of the worst is the fact that attributes can use
> namespace prefixes that haven't yet been declared. This
> means you need some kind of lookahead. 
>

Thanks Michael, I had forgotton all about that nasty.

I did get some results based on my initial assumptions about 
what needed to be checked. In short it appears as though 
about 50% of the benefit is by not performing a full set of 
checks and the rest is the quicker parsing in the cases I 
looked at.

I should quantify this by saying I did not put any real 
amount of effort into optimising the checks so this is 
probably overstating the costs a bit in a production 
version. 

What is a little surprising is that the result you get is 
quite finely balanced on your choice of parser, encoding 
format and test documents. With carefull selection you 
could probably get just about any result you wanted, e.g. 
on one very text centric document I saw a difference of x25 
when the checks were added.

Kev.

• References:
  • RE: Well-formed BinXML
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>

• Prev by Date: Find out whether a document has namespace defined
• Next by Date: Re: on-the-wire xml ... Even if you're ...
• Previous by thread: RE: Well-formed BinXML
• Next by thread: Re: Well-formed BinXML
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread