• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 20:19:22 -0500
• In-reply-to: <15963.57936.208121.931029@m...>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <OF047F14BF.0A3C2919-ONCA256CD8.00031C17@f...> <3E5BDD04.70105@y...> <15963.57936.208121.931029@m...>
• User-agent: KMail/1.4.3

On Tuesday 25 February 2003 04:38 pm, David Megginson wrote:
> We may just have to accept that the Tim B. twins (Tim
> Berners-Lee and Tim Bray) have been right all along, and that
> text-based formats really are efficient enough for the vast majority
> of applications.

This is also proposed by Kerningham and Pike in "The Practice of Programming" 
(a good book BTW).

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

• Prev by Date: Re: collisions (was The subsetting has begun)
• Next by Date: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Previous by thread: Re: Use cases for parsing efficiency (was Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????)
• Next by thread: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread