• To: Matthew.Bennett@f...,xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:28:47 +0000
• In-reply-to: <OF047F14BF.0A3C2919-ONCA256CD8.00031C17@f...>
• References: <OF047F14BF.0A3C2919-ONCA256CD8.00031C17@f...>

On Tuesday 25 February 2003 00:38, Matthew.Bennett@f... wrote:
> Hi There,
>
> Why parse repeatedly, if it's so damned inefficient? Why not come up with
> the concept of a 'compiled' xml document; one where structural info. is
> stored, and access is *FAST*, and validity and well-formedness have already
> been 'certified'? No-one's surprised that interpretive languages are
> execution dogs compared to compiled versions (because of no on-going
> parsing!), so why the mock horror that interpretive XML is so inefficient?

When I've got around to writing up the debate, the pros and cons of this will 
be listed at:

http://www.alaric-snell.com/xml-dev-threads.html#binxml

Any volunteers, in the meantime? :-) I'm pro-binxml, so will need an 
anti-binxml viewpoint to balance...

> Cheerio,
> Matt Bennett

ABS

-- 
A city is like a large, complex, rabbit
 - ARP

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>

• References:
  • Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: Matthew.Bennett@f...

• Prev by Date: [ANN] XML Standards Library 2.0 : Updated 2003-02-25
• Next by Date: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Previous by thread: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Next by thread: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread