RE: [xml-dev] Validation vs performance - was Re: [xml-dev] Fast text output from SAX?

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Yes.  Dead on.  When where and under what conditions 
do applications need alternative formats?   Those 
who think they need one should be making the cases 
for those conditions now.

Here's the shakedown:  binaries vs text formats as 
Bob W. points out is an old debate.  There are:

1.  Those who are developing a generalized binary 
and want to offer that.

2.  Those who are developing an application-specific 
binary and are/will use that.

3.  Those who believe no genereralized binary will 
do the job well-enough for the applications in item 
2 to make it worth the costs and disadvantages or 
lost advantages of choosing from item 1.

4.  Those who think a binary alternative to XML will 
be worth the costs and lost advantages in any case.

1 and 2 won't be able to make a case to 4.  They may 
be able by dint of demonstration make a case for 3 
who likely will include elements of 2 already.

Binaries will be and are being developed.  This comes 
down to generalized vs application-specific binaries.

len


From: Michael Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org]

  I cringe at the "Right Thing vs the Cowboy Way" characterizations at 
various points in this these threads. There are a lot of ways to set up 
a business process or transformation/aggregation pipeline to get both 
scalability and validity, and recommendations "disallowing" particular 
approaches at one step by global fiat are certain to be ignored.  It 
would be nice to get these threads turned into a discussion of best 
practices that people see in real life to find the optimal tradeoffs 
between desirable but somewhat incompatible properties such as loose 
coupling and high performance ... and away from discussion of alleged 
universal principles that should be promoted or disallowed.