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

Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative

• To: james.fuller@o...
• Subject: Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• From: Tahir Hashmi <code_martial@s...>
• Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 08:51:06 +0530
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <45951.213.123.177.163.1044369605.squirrel@w...>
• References: <p04330103ba65690e85d6@[192.168.254.4]><45951.213.123.177.163.1044369605.squirrel@w...>

On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:40:05 -0500 (EST)
James Fuller wrote:

> whats that phrase about the dangers of 'early optimisation'.... the usage 
> of binary xml should be seen as an optimisation step, and is directly 
> related to some level of critical adoption of xml technologies....  so I 
> wouldn't discount it, just put it in its place.

Erm, my idea with Xqueeze was that I shouldn't pay for something I
don't use (human-readability), irrespective of whether the price is
small or large. That being the case, I tried to minimize the reasons
for *not* using Xqueeze. Ideally, you would use it simply because you
can and it doesn't do any harm! Yet, xqML is 3 to 4 times more compact
and its lexical analysis is much simpler than that of XML (see the
reference implementation). That's why I am expecting it to parse
faster.

-- 
Tahir Hashmi (VSE, NCST)
http://staff.ncst.ernet.in/tahir
tahir AT ncst DOT ernet DOT in

We, the rest of humanity, wish GNU luck and Godspeed

• References:
  • Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
    • From: "James Fuller" <james.fuller@o...>

• Prev by Date: Re: misunderstanding of XML Schema ?
• Next by Date: Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• Previous by thread: Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• Next by thread: Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread