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

Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative

• To: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@m...>
• Subject: Re: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 16:01:54 +0100
• Cc: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>, james.fuller@o..., code_martial@s..., xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B7C89B@R...>
• Organization: Expway
• References: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B7C89B@R...>
• Reply-to: robin.berjon@e...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2) Gecko/20021126

Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> Your list is one of the reasons I consider attempting to standardize on a
> globally accepted binary XML format as a fool's errand. Various applications
> have different requirements especially when it comes to size vs. speed and I've
> yet to see a binary XML proposal that satisfies both camps let alone the other
> interesting requirements that you site. I can't imagine that trying to please
> all those requirements would spawn a creation not unlike W3C XML Schema which
> attempted to satisfy too many conflicting requirements and ended up a satisfying
> them in an inadequate manner,

That's just four requirements, and if you look closely there are ways in which 
they are inter-related and ways in which they are orthogonal that contribute to 
making them possible.

I am not saying that a solution that addresses them all will be absolutely 
optimal for each of those four requirements, as one is likely to find trade offs 
along the way. Much of my work revolves around a format that satisfies those 
constraints, and while I wouldn't call it simplistic it's a *lot* simpler to 
understand than XML Schema. That's just my experience but it took me about a 
week to get to grips with Bin-XML when I joined Expway, but I still don't claim 
to completely understand XML Schema (even though I use it on a daily basis).

Size and speed do indeed have conflicts but they aren't unsurmountable, far from 
it. Streaming and random access tend to be linked together in ways that make it 
possible to solve both with the same solution. None of them conflicts with 
either of the two first ones in any way that I've noticed.

Apart from pathological cases, making statements on the viability of a set of 
requirements is a perilous exercize when without implementation experience.


> 	-----Original Message----- 
> 	From: Robin Berjon [mailto:robin.berjon@e...] 
> 	Sent: Wed 2/5/2003 6:28 AM 
> 	Subject: Re:  Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
> 	
> 	- size
> 	- speed (parsing time)
> 	- streaming (the ability to send the document in independent, yet well-formed as
> 	   per the binary format, fragments. Those are possibly sent in an order that
> 	   does not match that of the document. This ties in strongly with XML Fragments
> 	   and XML Packaging)
> 	- random access (being able to skip straight to the portion of the document you
> 	   want, without having to parse it all)

-- 
Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
Research Engineer, Expway        http://expway.fr/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE  8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488

• References:
  • RE: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Xqueeze: Compact XML Alternative
• 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