[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:len.bullard@intergraph.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 4:51 PM
> To: 'Liam Quin'; Derek Denny-Brown
> Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Hostility to "binary XML" (was Re:
> [xml-dev] XML 2004 weblog items?)
>
> Would this situation improve if an effort to create a binary
> were prepositioned by an effort to improve/simplify XML?
>
> I think it time (past time perhaps) to finally cut the cords
> to ISO 8879 and put XML at the top of the stack. That is the
> reality of the market and the opportunity. Whereas I've
> always been known to argue this point, it is time I admit
> being wrong. I'm not one to put a knife in any person's
> back, but this is technology and technology is just stuff.
> We can improve it and we should because that is what we do
> and the world counts on us to do it.
>
> len
>
> PS: Top Impression of XML 2004:
>
> My lasting impression is of the decency of the XML community.
> From the leadership to the newest newbie, I've never
> encountered a more good hearted, capable and ethical
> community. I am humbled and awed. And glad.
>
> And I know absolutely nothing about ukeleles... "I hope I
> passed the audition."
Believe it or not, I met Tiny Tim once (about 17 years ago). Not exactly
a brush with greatness, but since we were on the subject of ukeleles....
Kind Regards,
Joseph Chiusano
Booz Allen Hamilton
Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
>
> From: Liam Quin [mailto:liam@w3.org]
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 01:09:06PM -0800, Derek Denny-Brown wrote:
> > Most of the CPU cost of parsing is related to the abstract model
> > of XML, not the text parsing: Duplicate attribute detection,
> > character checking, namespace resolution/checking. Every binary-xml
> > implementation I have researched which improves CPU utilization does
> > so by skipping checks such as these. At that point you are no longer
> > talking about XML.
>
> One can do validation in the writer and then plausibly skip
> the sort of
> checks you mention in a reader, and still be talking about XML, even
> with today's textual interchange formats.
>
> > I have yet to hear of any proposed solution which successfully
> > balances the different demands. I'm not sure it is possible, without
> > creating a homunculus.
>
> Neither am I, which is why W3C has a Working Group to
> investiate whether
> it might be possible, rather than a WG to implement a homunculus :-)
>
> Liam
>
> --
> Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
> http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
|
