--- William Gilreath <wgilreath@g...> wrote:

> Announcing a Preview of XString, an XML technology -
> XML as a String.
> 
> I've created a means to efficiently encode XML as a
> flat string, which I

What you describe sounds like textual variation of
binary encodings that already exist, just less
efficient, but almost as unreadable. What actual
significant benefit would there be for using this
technique?

If one is willing to deviate from the canonical
textual serialization, one might as well go fully
binary, and get 50%+ size reduction (plus enough hints
for decoder to be able to pre-allocate suitably sized
chunks). Formats and implementations (Fast Infoset,
Bnux, XBis, and probably many others) already exist,
with demonstratable performance improvements (1.5x -
3x throughput increase, depending on what on how you
measure)

Based on example on page pointed to, XString would get
modest 15% size reduction, and performance
improvements (with _good_ implementations) tend to be
linear to size reduction. So where's the beef? What
actual great improvements and benefits would one get
with Xstring?

About the only relevant improvement I could see was
the embeddability (which actually would be kind of
nice)... but anything else?

-+ Tatu +-

ps. With regards to this discussion, I actually do
think it just might fit within list agenda -- it is an
alternate serialization of Infoset, not so much
changes to xml syntax, or alternative to Infoset.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com