Re: Minutes of 2001-07-30 Teleconf

>ACTION Hughes: post data on performance of canonicalization versus parsing, 
>Canonical XML and Exclusive Canonicalization as presently specified. (Reagle:
>we might be barking up the wrong tree, might not be able to make it that much

 Algorith \ Document size | 1.5KB | 18KB | 902KB
 non-validated parsing    | 1.0   | 1.0  | 1.0
 c14n                     | .44   | 0.52 | 0.84
 exclusive c14n           | .48   | 0.69 | 1.58
 reaglonicalization       | .36   | 0.42 | 0.82

Times down a column are measured relative to the
parsing time; times across a row are independent;
the large documents were quite repetitious.

All the values are, of course, meaningless, except
to possibly conclude that Reaglonicalization may
be an acceptable substitute for Exclusive
Canonicalization that fits Joseph's desired
parameters (no slower than regular c14n).


Baltimore Technologies plc will not be liable for direct,  special,  indirect 
or consequential  damages  arising  from  alteration of  the contents of this
message by a third party or as a result of any virus being passed on.

In addition, certain Marketing collateral may be added from time to time to
promote Baltimore Technologies products, services, Global e-Security or
appearance at trade shows and conferences.

This footnote confirms that this email message has been swept by
Baltimore MIMEsweeper for Content Security threats, including
computer viruses.

Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2001 11:17:29 UTC