[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Xml-bin] :-(
- From: Leigh Dodds <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 11:34:10 +0100
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: 19 April 2001 21:52
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [Xml-bin] :-(
> "Al B. Snell" wrote:
> > http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/04/18/binaryXML.html
> > Didn't really capture our side of the argument, it seems...
> Filtering out all opposing arguments as not worth printing seems a bit
> unfair. There's a lot of "kill the solution before it matures" going on
I certainly wasn't attempting to 'kill the solution'.
Having read through every posting in those threads, there seemed to
be several voices in favour of the proposal, and a many more who,
if not outright against the proposal, were requesting some concrete
evidence that the effort was worth it at all.
As I wrote, the issue has surfaced several times since I've
been an XML-DEV member (most recently in January), and in most
cases its the low-level issues ('space and efficiency') that are often
However these are not the entire picture, something that Bohlman
and Perry communicated very clearly I think. And thats why I chose
to highlight these points - simply because these issues hadn't been
articulated in previous debates.
> On the other hand, I have no problem with people asking for
> evidence that it's a better method. It's just a hypothesis waiting to
> be properly tested. And no, my solution hasn't been tested yet.
You're right, its always worth testing hypotheses.
Yet, the evidence that I believe several list members were seeking
was more a review of the current real (and not perceived)
bottle-necks in processing textual XML (documents or otherwise).
And, as RickJ noted, these bottle-necks may be alleviated by
using techniques *other* than binary encoding.
The general problem (at least to me) is much more interesting: identify
areas that could be improved, and then seek mechanisms for solving
them. Binary encoding is just *one* possible solution, and (like all
optimisations) will involve a trade-off of other features. Casting a
wider net (short-tagging, binary indexes, lazy DOMs) might actually
produce something beneficial in a greater number of cases.
(As a side note, what might seem like apparent disinterest may be
more a sign that concerns are centred on other areas of the
XML framework, rather than this most fundamental one.
Although there are certainly a few loose bricks among the
Leigh Dodds, Systems Architect | "Pluralitas non est ponenda
http://weblogs.userland.com/eclectic | sine necessitate"
http://www.xml.com/pub/xmldeviant | -- William of Ockham