RE: [xml-dev] When parsing speed matters (was Re: [xml-dev] NoXML Binari

["Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net>]

Possibly because the standard for XML to produce 3D on the web is X3D?

Just in case you have trouble following the thread because it gets retitled
by posters, I asked originally about the XML appliances as ways to improve
the lot of XML when it is used in real-time 3D applications of XML.  The
binary seems to be applicable, but the appliances are dedicated to tasks
that are only tangentially related.  Someone rethreaded that into a debate
on binaries and someone else took it onto the debate about parsing speed.  

The point is to speedup XML because, verbosity matters.

And discussions aren't off topic if they discussed 2D SVG or XUL or XForms?
That's rather bigoted.

Like it or not, Andrew, the real-time 3D applications are hot.  Electric
Sheep just picked up $7 million in investments for what is a content
production house for Second Life solely and SL is a closed platform as if a
newspaper had picked up $7 million to write exclusively for iPods.  

If XML is the common ground for data exchange, and this is where debates
that affect that common ground such as binary, hardware accelerators,
alternative syntaxes, and so on take place, then you can expect those whose
requirements vary from yours to make a case here.  If they don't they have
to pick another syntax. Orignally they did that.  Guess what?  No difference
except it is easier to read and type and does parse faster.  As others point
out, parsing is not the place where the most gains in speed are made.

len


From: Andrew Welch [mailto:andrew.j.welch@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 7:45 AM

I would've thought 2D vs 3D discussions were OT...

It seems most threads on xml-dev end up as discussions about X3D and
VRML, regardless of how they started - take this one for example.