• To: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Subject: Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:10:05 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: xml-dev mailing list <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <CB2F8F02-4E99-11D8-B206-000A95A51C9E@t...>

> I think that with a little bit of care in the code, this should
> generate guaranteed-WF canonical XML at speeds close enough to the most
> deranged pedal-to-the-metal custom C code to vanish in the static of
> any conceivable application.  Would this be premature optimization?

Nah, it's a challenge. Looking forward to testing your code against
our product. :)  I'm kinda sorry I raised the 'premature optimizatio'
issue, it's kinda like Postel's law in its misapplication.
If performance is an issue, it's best if it is designed in, as your
handle approach seems to do.

Welcome to the signed-email world, too.

        /r$

--
Rich Salz                  Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology       http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway  http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview      http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html

• References:
  • Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: genx: canonicalization vs. pretty printing
• Next by Date: Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
• Previous by thread: Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
• Next by thread: Re: Refreshed genx.h, plus some plans
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread