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

Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????

• To: David Megginson <david@m...>
• Subject: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
• Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:21:12 +0100
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <15963.65069.422647.95309@m...>
• Organization: Expway
• References: <OF047F14BF.0A3C2919-ONCA256CD8.00031C17@f...> <15962.49099.318137.237747@m...> <3E5BDD04.70105@y...> <15963.57936.208121.931029@m...> <oprk59i5y1ezizxn@s...> <15963.65069.422647.95309@m...>
• Reply-to: robin.berjon@e...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.2) Gecko/20021126

David Megginson wrote:
> Mike Champion writes:
>  > The case for alternative serializations really couldn't have been
>  > plausibly made until very recently.  Now there are all sorts of
>  > people who want to author in WikiML or whatever, parse thousands of
>  > messages a minute, send XML to wristwatches, etc.
> 
> First, someone needs to establish what the extra overhead of XML over
> binary formats (bandwidth and processing time) actually is in
> realistic use cases.

Please describe what a "realistic use case" is to you, and time allowing I'll be 
happy to oblige. I'd also be glad to know what in the use cases that have 
already been cited many times in this permathread is not realistic.

> If we're dealing with wristwatches that display
> images or even video, for example, then relatively speaking any text
> format (including XML) represents a negligable bandwidth and storage
> hit.

I don't know about wristwatches that display video, but I know about the tiny 
devices and about video situations. For tiny devices (less powerful than your 
typical cell phone) storage can be a problem and so can parsing time (on the 
smaller ones, eg digital radios).

For video, parsing is usually not a problem (though people are always happy to 
save cycles there) but bandwidth *really* is (and I won't go into streamability 
issues). I don't know what amount of XML you had in mind but for those that are 
typically found in broadcast/digital TV/digital radio, there certainly is no 
sufficient bandwidth. Real-time video metadata, captionning, TV programs, 
personalised services, etc all consume a fair amount of bandwidth if they are to 
be expressed as XML. And the problem is worsened by the fact that it is a 
unidirectional environment, so that the information has to be continously broadcast.

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

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• References:
  • Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: Matthew.Bennett@f...
  • re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: "J.Pietschmann" <j3322ptm@y...>
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: On permathreads
• Next by Date: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Previous by thread: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Next by thread: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread