[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Dennis Sosnoski wrote:
> I think this *would* be a fair comparison test for
> the ASN.1 "fast infoset" approach
Yes. You are correct. Both the ASN.1-based X.finfo and XBIS
are binary encodings for "schema-free" XML documents. Thus, it makes
sense to compare them to each other. It wouldn't be fair to compare
XBIS to a "schema-based" binary encoding since the schema-based system
would almost surely blow XBIS away in both compactness as well as
parsing speed.
It is important to note that by saying that well-implemented
schema based approaches would be faster/smaller/etc. than XBIS, I'm
not saying anything negative about XBIS. We're talking here about two
classes of solution. (schema-based and schema-free) Each class is more
or less appropriate and useful in different contexts and each has
qualities that the other can't match. An orange should not be sorry
that it is less crunchy than an apple.
Thomas B. Passin wrote:
> But presumably the alternative "quasi-xml" you will be
> testing will not likely be producing SAX events, but
> instead some proprietary parse system instead.
Why would this be assumed? It seems to me that SAX has proved
its utility and that anyone who builds an alternative to XML should
probably ensure that an XMLReader can be built for it that behaves as
a normal SAX reader would. The application user should be shielded as
much as possible from concern for the on-the-wire or on-disk format of
the data they are working with. I suspect that a format that was
somehow "incapable" of producing SAX events faithfully is probably
fundamentally flawed in its ability to represent XML documents.
bob wyman
|
