Michael Kay schrieb:
>> In all cases, will it not be more efficient to just use some
>> run-of-the-mill serialization format?
>
> A general-purpose serialization format (for example, Java
> serialization) will represent the concrete implementation of
> the XDM model (for example a Saxon TinyTree), which will only
> be usable if you want to reconstruct it as another Saxon
> TinyTree. I think we are looking for a format that allows you
> to cross implementation boundaries.
Yes, but if I remember correctly (not sure I do, actually), a
motivation for this quest was efficiency in a pipeline, which
precludes an XML round-trip.
What about a CommonTinyTree interface for Saxon and Xalan? My
guess is that would be problematic. In the end, what would be
gained? Also, competition is good; different engines explore
different ways. (Even if I seem to remember having read that
TinyTree was inspired by the Xalan implementation.)
I'm not a trained computer scientist, but I would be astonished
if there was no format for serializing trees that could be used
to accomodate XDM. And be implemented in Java.
Something like a "General Tree Serialization Format". Maybe the
exact wording needs some tweaking to make Google come up with
something useful.
--
Michael Ludwig
