• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• From: Matthew.Bennett@f...
• Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:38:37 +1100

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?

Cheerio,
Matt Bennett

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
  • re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: The subsetting has begun
• Next by Date: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Previous by thread: RE: DOM support in IE vs. NS
• Next by thread: re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread