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

Faster processing without schemas? (was Re: Microsoft FUD on b

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Faster processing without schemas? (was Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
• From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:00:30 -0500
• In-reply-to: <200311190712.AJB75860@m...>
• References: <200311190712.AJB75860@m...>

On Nov 19, 2003, at 2:12 AM, Bob Wyman wrote:

>>
>     Can you say more about why it might make sense to define
> new, non-ASN.1 binary encodings as you seem to refer to above?
> ASN.1 PER is good at producing compact encodings and can be
> parsed very rapidly. Thus, it would seem to satisfy the needs
> you specify -- except that it does require that the schema be
> known by both sides. I'm not sure how you would get the
> tightest encoding and fastest parsing without relying on
> schema knowledge.

Generic DBMS and middleware (ahem, the payers of my salary) can't in  
general efficiently know the schema of everything flowing in and out,  
so requiring schema knowledge is a showstopper for me.
>
>      I know that there have been a variety of suggestions for
> doing things like removing the need for endtags in XML by
> inserting field-length counts, using *zip functions to do
> compression, or sending data with built in dictionaries of
> strings used more than once... Is this the kind of thing
> you're talking about? Can you name some of that non-ASN.1
> candidates that you think should be seriously considered?
>

Pretty much.  There are a lot of interesting ideas in the papers  
submitted to the W3C binary serialization workshop.

  http://www.w3.org/2003/08/binary-interchange-workshop/Report#papers

I'd note in particular:

http://www.w3.org/2003/08/binary-interchange-workshop/09-Sosnoski- 
position-paper.pdf

http://www.w3.org/2003/08/binary-interchange-workshop/20-ximpleware- 
positionpaper-updated.htm

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Faster processing without schemas? (was Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>

• References:
  • Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: Bob Wyman <bob@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: XML and a text editor, barefoot in the winter,uphill both ways [...]
• Next by Date: Re: Re: XML and a text editor, barefoot in the winter,uphill both ways [...]
• Previous by thread: Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• Next by thread: RE: Faster processing without schemas? (was Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread