Re: "Binary XML" proposals

["Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net>]

IMHO, SAX events are the wrong model for a more useful binary structured XML.  DOM,
or rather DOM + optional DOM Deltas, are my current front running model.  For
protocol use, including passing around any kind of XML for application
interpretation, XML transmission will generally be done atomically where access to a
DOM style tree is typical.  SAX, in these situations, seems to be used mainly to
support a custom parse tree, including just loading values into a 3GL structure,
rather than for it's other advantage: processing documents too large to load
completely into memory.

sdw

"W. E. Perry" wrote:

> Al Snell wrote:
>
> > Christopher R. Maden wrote:
> > >If I get Al's Binary Structure Format, what the heck do I
> > > do with it?  The drawbacks seem prohibitive and the benefits minimal.
> >
> > Dude, we covered this point... read the thread!
>
> What this thread has not covered, IMHO, is this:  what you, or I, or any user of
> an XML document might *do* with it is determined primarily by what the needs and
> the abilities of that user are, and by the particular environment in which that
> document is used, far more than by any fixed understanding of what that document
> might 'mean'. One proposal earlier in the thread apparently visualized a 'binary
> XML' format as a way to hash and then ship around SAX events between
> applications, avoiding re-parsing with each use. This sort of thing is a well
> ....
> Respectfully,
>
> Walter Perry
>
>

--
OptimaLogic - Finding Optimal Solutions     Web/Crypto/OO/Unix/Comm/Video/DBMS
sdw@lig.net   Stephen D. Williams  Senior Consultant/Architect   http://sdw.st
43392 Wayside Cir,Ashburn,VA 20147-4622 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 5Jan1999