• To: "'xml-dev'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list availabl e
• From: "Stephen E. Beller" <sbeller@n...>
• Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 12:04:48 -0400
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <A586A8E1-8A30-11D8-B357-000A95CCC59E@x...>
• Organization: NHDS, Inc.

Michael - Please explain what you mean by "formats that ... still parse into
the XML Infoset."

And, is this one kind of optimization people are requesting: A format
optimized for human readability, rapid delivery, minimal storage and
efficient rendering of large data sets?

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Champion [mailto:mc@x...] 
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2004 10:18 AM
To: xml-dev
Subject: Re:  XML Binary Characterization WG public list availabl e

[snip] ... The question is whether there is one, or a manageable number
greater 
than one, alternative format(s) that can cover a signficant range of 
use cases and still parse into the XML Infoset.  "Optimized" is the 
right word, IMHO, because it forces one to ask "optimized for what?", 
and that forces one to measure time and space overheads in real use 
cases with real code. 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list availabl e
    • From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>

• References:
  • Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list availabl e
    • From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list availabl e
• Next by Date: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list availabl e
• Next by thread: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list availabl e
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread