[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Rich Salz wrote:
> I want to mainly emphasize some points from Michael Champion's
> response. The W3C XML-Binary group is *not* coming up with a binary
> format, but rather characterizing what's important for such a format
> if created. BTW, there's also the Sun-initiated ISO effort (X.fws,
> fast web services) and various research efforts around, too.
>
> The "network device" approach is increasingly being seen as a
> reasonable architecture. We make such devices, so I'm biased. But
> 12-24 months ago you'd have to do a real "sell job" to talk to folks
> about "XML in the network." But now it's rare that it's not already
> on someone's architecture list. (This is for, say, Fortune 1000 or
> similar, with departments devoted to Enterprise Computing Architecture
> or some such.)
>
> One interesting things about client/server XML is that the computing
> load is asymmetric. It's a heck of a lot easier to generate XML than
> it is to consume and process it. Your note didn't seem to take that
> into account.
i suppose it depends on the app, but we consume it through this path:
xml -> xslt -> tcl script -> database or generic commands
now the xslt stuff is great for this sort of thing. we also use it
generate postscript for a forms application where there is an excellent
match. i've written some parsing in xslt and some using sax and i'd have
to say the xslt stuff i've found in general easier to get right in more
complex cases.
the only time i came unstuck was trying to generate a spreadsheet and
calculate rows. it was O(n squared) or worse.
i don't think generating or consuming is all that hard, but working out
what you want to do can be very difficult.
rick
>
> /r$
>
begin:vcard
fn:Rick Marshall
n:Marshall;Rick
email;internet:rjm@zenucom.com
tel;cell:+61 411 287 530
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
|
