- From: <rhm@cdepot.net>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:05:42 -0000
- To: <jimbobbs@hotmail.com>, "'Bill de h?ra'" <dehora@eircom.net>, "'Sean B. Palmer'" <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Sorry to be so slow in responding, but I'm officially "on vacation" at Lake Tahoe, & doing email is a little awkward here. Just one observation -- all of the attempts to improve readability have used the same strategy: replacing *long* names by *short* names. That strategy takes into account the fact that humans can only absorb so much at one time, and *shorter is better*. Dick McCullough ------- Jimmy Cerra <jimbobbs@hotmail.com> said: > > > > The TAG finding says that parsing costs of QNames in PCDATA may be > > > high. I've proved that, for Python and SAX and least, the opposite > is > > > true. > > > > Agreed. And Qnames in element content have higher cost (imo). > > What about QNames in attribute values? What's the cost for that like? > I'm considering using a QName-like [1] syntax for the design of a markup > language (in progress). > > -- > Jimmy Cerra > > ] "I have learned these days, never to limit > ] anyone else due to my own limited > ] imagination." - Dr. Mae C. Jemison > > [1] I don't want to use Qualified Names, as they are, because the syntax > of a QName may be confused with that of an URI. > --
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 16:05:50 UTC