• To: David Megginson <david@m...>
• Subject: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:50:15 -0800
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <15964.61276.397640.905946@m...>
• References: <OF047F14BF.0A3C2919-ONCA256CD8.00031C17@f...> <E18o1JK-0004N2-00@c...> <15964.52445.622746.164350@m...> <E18o3KQ-0007I7-00@c...> <15964.61276.397640.905946@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030212

David Megginson wrote:

> I have no objection to coming up with better ways of moving
> information around, with or without XML, but first I need (a)
> credible, repeatable field tests that prove that there's a significant
> problem, and then (b) credible, repeatable field tests that prove that
> a different format can actually solve those problems.  With those
> results in hand, then we can talk about the costs and benefits (and
> whether the XML activity is the right place to try to solve the
> problem).

I'm replying to David's message just so that people will have to look at 
it twice.  -Tim

• References:
  • Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: Matthew.Bennett@f...
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: David Megginson <david@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: Registered Namespace prefixes
• Previous by thread: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Next by thread: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread