[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:40:05 -0500 (EST)
James Fuller wrote:
> whats that phrase about the dangers of 'early optimisation'.... the usage
> of binary xml should be seen as an optimisation step, and is directly
> related to some level of critical adoption of xml technologies.... so I
> wouldn't discount it, just put it in its place.
Erm, my idea with Xqueeze was that I shouldn't pay for something I
don't use (human-readability), irrespective of whether the price is
small or large. That being the case, I tried to minimize the reasons
for *not* using Xqueeze. Ideally, you would use it simply because you
can and it doesn't do any harm! Yet, xqML is 3 to 4 times more compact
and its lexical analysis is much simpler than that of XML (see the
reference implementation). That's why I am expecting it to parse
faster.
--
Tahir Hashmi (VSE, NCST)
http://staff.ncst.ernet.in/tahir
tahir AT ncst DOT ernet DOT in
We, the rest of humanity, wish GNU luck and Godspeed
|
