- From: Matthew Fuchs <matt@wdi.disney.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 09:35:52 -0700
- To: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>, "'w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org '" <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
Andrew: On May 16, 6:40pm, Andrew Layman wrote: > Subject: RE: SD1 - Short End Tags > > Where they do become important is when XML is machine-generated as a > transport protocol by an automated process. For example, it is very > important to me to consider using XML as a format for getting results > back from database queries. They might be financial records, electronic > commerce records, purchase orders, etc. These are neither written by > humans nor meant to be read by humans. In many of these cases, the > volume of data is large, but is mainly short fields, so the overhead of > lengthy tags is pretty high relative to the basic data. I'm getting a > lot of pushback from database people regarding this point. They are very > concerned that we make it possible for them to be more economical in > their encoding. Accomodating their needs means opening up a whole > additional category of XML user. > > >-- End of excerpt from Andrew Layman If these are only leaves with relatively short character strings, why can't the data be stuck as attribute values of empty tags? I.e., <name v="Andrew Layman"/><position v="XML dataslinger"/> instead of <name>Andrew Layman</><position>XML dataslinger</> This has a fixed cost of 3 characters per tag over empty tags and doesn't require changing the current spec. (Note: this could be attacked as a kluge, but I think it does the job.) Matthew Fuchs matt@wdi.disney.com --
Received on Monday, 19 May 1997 12:34:11 UTC