• To: David Megginson <david@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• From: "J.Pietschmann" <j3322ptm@y...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:15:48 +0100
• In-reply-to: <15962.49099.318137.237747@m...>
• References: <OF047F14BF.0A3C2919-ONCA256CD8.00031C17@f...> <15962.49099.318137.237747@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130

David Megginson wrote:
>  > Why not come
>  > up with the concept of a 'compiled' xml document;
...
> This is not a new idea, but despite many bold attempts and breathless
> announcements, in five years no one has come up with anything that has
> caught on.

Yes, there is no standard, nor a COTS implementation in wide use.
However, I've seen various applications and frameworks rolling their
own. In particular Cocoon can store a SAX event stream in a sort
of "binary XML", for the purpose of caching intermediate results
in an XML processing pipeline. Admittedly, this usage is a bit
special.

J.Pietschmann

• 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...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: Are the data users happy? Why not?
• Next by Date: Xpath & conditional filters
• Previous by thread: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Next by thread: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread