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

RE: [Xml-bin] :-(

  • From: Leigh Dodds <ldodds@i...>
  • To: sdw@l..., xml-bin@w..., xml-dev@l...
  • Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:34:10 +0100

bin to xml

> -----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!

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.