Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> -----Original Message----- > From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:len.bullard@i...] > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 4:51 PM > To: 'Liam Quin'; Derek Denny-Brown > Cc: xml-dev@l... > Subject: RE: Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re: > XML 2004 weblog items?) > > Would this situation improve if an effort to create a binary > were prepositioned by an effort to improve/simplify XML? > > I think it time (past time perhaps) to finally cut the cords > to ISO 8879 and put XML at the top of the stack. That is the > reality of the market and the opportunity. Whereas I've > always been known to argue this point, it is time I admit > being wrong. I'm not one to put a knife in any person's > back, but this is technology and technology is just stuff. > We can improve it and we should because that is what we do > and the world counts on us to do it. > > len > > PS: Top Impression of XML 2004: > > My lasting impression is of the decency of the XML community. > From the leadership to the newest newbie, I've never > encountered a more good hearted, capable and ethical > community. I am humbled and awed. And glad. > > And I know absolutely nothing about ukeleles... "I hope I > passed the audition." Believe it or not, I met Tiny Tim once (about 17 years ago). Not exactly a brush with greatness, but since we were on the subject of ukeleles.... Kind Regards, Joseph Chiusano Booz Allen Hamilton Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World > > From: Liam Quin [mailto:liam@w...] > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 01:09:06PM -0800, Derek Denny-Brown wrote: > > Most of the CPU cost of parsing is related to the abstract model > > of XML, not the text parsing: Duplicate attribute detection, > > character checking, namespace resolution/checking. Every binary-xml > > implementation I have researched which improves CPU utilization does > > so by skipping checks such as these. At that point you are no longer > > talking about XML. > > One can do validation in the writer and then plausibly skip > the sort of > checks you mention in a reader, and still be talking about XML, even > with today's textual interchange formats. > > > I have yet to hear of any proposed solution which successfully > > balances the different demands. I'm not sure it is possible, without > > creating a homunculus. > > Neither am I, which is why W3C has a Working Group to > investiate whether > it might be possible, rather than a WG to implement a homunculus :-) > > Liam > > -- > Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ > http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/ > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an > initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> > > The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription > manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php> > >
|
