• To: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:21:33 +0000
• In-reply-to: <00a301c2dce0$a10c5440$9e539696@citkwaclaww2k>
• References: <OF047F14BF.0A3C2919-ONCA256CD8.00031C17@f...> <3E5B84CF.4020703@e...> <00a301c2dce0$a10c5440$9e539696@citkwaclaww2k>

On Tuesday 25 February 2003 15:14, Karl Waclawek wrote:

> Basically, the effort to get up and running with a small XML project
> is minimal as long as I have a parser.

Thing is, I reckon any reasonably binxml parser would come with a tool (and 
it would be a simple tool to write) that maps it to and from textual XML. And 
it should be the case that parsers accept both text-XML and bin-XML while 
outputting your choice of format, so for development you could just run in 
"output text" mode anyway, saving the manual conversion tool for when 
something goes wrong in a live system and all you have are capture messages 
rather than the ability to recreate the problem on a test bed.

http://www.alaric-snell.com/xml-dev-threads.html#binxml is being extended to 
cover these points as fast as I can type :-)

> Karl

ABS

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

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

• References:
  • Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: Matthew.Bennett@f...
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@e...>
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: "Karl Waclawek" <karl@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The subsetting has begun
• 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