[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: [Xml-bin] :-(
> -----Original Message----- > From: sdw@l... [mailto:sdw@l...] > Sent: 19 April 2001 21:52 > To: xml-bin@w...; xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: [Xml-bin] :-( > > > "Al B. Snell" wrote: > > > > http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/04/18/binaryXML.html > > > > Didn't really capture our side of the argument, it seems... > > Filtering out all opposing arguments as not worth printing seems a bit > unfair. There's a lot of "kill the solution before it matures" going on > here. I certainly wasn't attempting to 'kill the solution'. Having read through every posting in those threads, there seemed to be several voices in favour of the proposal, and a many more who, if not outright against the proposal, were requesting some concrete evidence that the effort was worth it at all. As I wrote, the issue has surfaced several times since I've been an XML-DEV member (most recently in January), and in most cases its the low-level issues ('space and efficiency') that are often discussed. However these are not the entire picture, something that Bohlman and Perry communicated very clearly I think. And thats why I chose to highlight these points - simply because these issues hadn't been articulated in previous debates. > On the other hand, I have no problem with people asking for > evidence that it's a better method. It's just a hypothesis waiting to > be properly tested. And no, my solution hasn't been tested yet. You're right, its always worth testing hypotheses. Yet, the evidence that I believe several list members were seeking was more a review of the current real (and not perceived) bottle-necks in processing textual XML (documents or otherwise). And, as RickJ noted, these bottle-necks may be alleviated by using techniques *other* than binary encoding. The general problem (at least to me) is much more interesting: identify areas that could be improved, and then seek mechanisms for solving them. Binary encoding is just *one* possible solution, and (like all optimisations) will involve a trade-off of other features. Casting a wider net (short-tagging, binary indexes, lazy DOMs) might actually produce something beneficial in a greater number of cases. (As a side note, what might seem like apparent disinterest may be more a sign that concerns are centred on other areas of the XML framework, rather than this most fundamental one. Although there are certainly a few loose bricks among the foundations...) Cheers, L. -- Leigh Dodds, Systems Architect | "Pluralitas non est ponenda http://weblogs.userland.com/eclectic | sine necessitate" http://www.xml.com/pub/xmldeviant | -- William of Ockham
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|