• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• From: David Megginson <david@m...>
• Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:19:09 -0500
• In-reply-to: <E18o1JK-0004N2-00@c...>
• References: <OF047F14BF.0A3C2919-ONCA256CD8.00031C17@f...><3E5C9518.1050402@e...><15964.46767.897161.524921@m...><E18o1JK-0004N2-00@c...>

Alaric B. Snell writes:

 > If your system is sitting idling waiting for data over the network, then a 
 > more compact representation would be a winner!

We'll look forward to your test results.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson, david@m..., http://www.megginson.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>

• 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: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
    • From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Parsing efficiency? - why not 'compile'????
• 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