[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Tuesday 25 February 2003 00:38, Matthew.Bennett@facs.gov.au wrote:
> Hi There,
>
> Why parse repeatedly, if it's so damned inefficient? Why not come up with
> the concept of a 'compiled' xml document; one where structural info. is
> stored, and access is *FAST*, and validity and well-formedness have already
> been 'certified'? No-one's surprised that interpretive languages are
> execution dogs compared to compiled versions (because of no on-going
> parsing!), so why the mock horror that interpretive XML is so inefficient?
When I've got around to writing up the debate, the pros and cons of this will
be listed at:
http://www.alaric-snell.com/xml-dev-threads.html#binxml
Any volunteers, in the meantime? :-) I'm pro-binxml, so will need an
anti-binxml viewpoint to balance...
> Cheerio,
> Matt Bennett
ABS
--
A city is like a large, complex, rabbit
- ARP
|
