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

Re: RE: Is DOM more efficient than SAX for smaller xml instanc

• From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@xxxxxxxxx>
• To: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@xxxxxxxx>
• Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:59:52 +0200

Sure, but as you will see here:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=DOM&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=STX

STX is slightly better than DOM.

However I worry that XSLT while often traded to great effect among
small groups has still not made any inroads in the large financial
markets:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=DOM&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=xsl

The other worry is that the reporting of results from Yahoo is not the
best because:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=DOM&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=XML

Unless Yahoo is ready to argue that the HTML DOM is the basis for
strong DOM standing in the marketplace then I suppose they better
rejiggle their whosits to better track performance of these
technologies.

Cheers,
Bryan



On 8/26/06, Jelks Cabaniss <jelks@j...> wrote:
> bryan rasmussen wrote:
> > I seem to remember once, long ago, reading something showing DOM was
> > more efficient than SAX for small XML instances - small being approx
> > 40 kb.
>
> It's true.  All you have to do is look at the charts:
>
>  <http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=DOM&t=5y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=SAX>
>
> Seems that SAX got off to a good start, but DOM has clearly predominated
> (please pardon the pun).
>
> Also note that DOM is popular in Alabama, while SAX predominates (again,
> please pardon the pun) in Virginia.
>
> Then again, Morgan Stanley just recently bought SAX, so one should expect
> its fortunes to change.
>
>
> /Jelks
>
>

• References:
  • RE: Is DOM more efficient than SAX for smaller xml instances?
    • From: Jelks Cabaniss