Lists Home |
Date Index |
On 4/20/05, Bullard, Claude L (Len) <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Thanks Ken, for that referenced paper. Very good reading. And
> Hmm. So, a trivial binary standard is the sweet spot for
I don't follow, the quoted piece says "more significant improvements
can be otatined by adopting optimized stream based XML parsers."
> compression is a separate issue needing further
> study, and schema-based binarization tightly couples but is
> possibly the best approach in the cases where high performance
> is traded against tight coupling (effectively, a new media type)
I strongly agree with both those points.
> The claim that view source is the reason for the growth of the
> web is overhyped. Applications such as Flash became ubiquitous
> without it and making it view sourceable now doesn't change the
> historical facts.
Interesting point I hadn't thought of before ... Still, my bottom
line is that XML interop is not so much a function of it being
textual, but it being the common denominator. That is problematic
enough with the various encodings, the various schema languages, the
substantial percentage of "XML" being processed by SOAP tools that
don't recognize anything defined by a DTD, etc. The last thing we need
is to double the number of permutations by adding another "common"