- From: Tatu Saloranta <tsaloranta@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 20:57:28 -0700
- To: public-exi@w3.org
Apologies if this has been asked earlier, but after reading the published draft, I noticed that comparisons seemed to only include parsers expected to be faster than the commonly used one. I can understand the desire to keep number of implementations measure limited, but I was hoping that in addition to "best of the best", couple of most commonly used parsers (like, Xerces-J) could also be included. The reason for this is that having a baseline xml parser implementations that everyone has access to would help in evaluating relative performance benefits of state-of-the-art parsers. It would also allow indirectly comparing performance of other parser implementations (not included in exi measurements) with ones that are included. My own selfish motivation is that this would also allow me to compare relative performance of the java xml parser I am mostly working on (Woodstox), even if I couldn't get access to (or have time to get ones written in other languages) the fastest ones included in exi experiments. For example, observing that the performance difference between Xerces and Woodstox appears to be somewhere between 20 - 40% would allow me to infer approximate ratios to faster parsers. So, is there a chance that one or two of the most commonly (if not fastest) used compliant xml parsers could also be included, for baselining purposes? -+ Tatu +-
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2006 03:57:40 UTC