Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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
|
