RE: XML-*

> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com

> I'm not claiming that there are necessarily factors of, say, 
> 2x in all 
> this.  I'm saying that the harder you work on performance, 
> the more these 
> things start to matter.  When you're in the regimes that 
> interest me you 
> are already paying some real costs for handling of 
> namespaces, unicode 
> conversions etc.  Adding entities to the mix is a further 
> complication, 
> and for systems like SOAP I don't think that on balance it pays.


So, at the extremes of efficiency, for one W3C area, we are
considering removing something the remainder of the XML users may want?

That sounds odd to me. Fix it for the 0.4% minority?

That hardly makes sense to me. At least ask around in the other 99% of XML
usage
before deciding this is a good idea.


regards DaveP

*** snip here ****

- 

NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is 
confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use, 
disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender 
immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your 
system.

RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any 
attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it 
cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are 
transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.

Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email 
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily 
represent those of RNIB.

RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227

Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk

Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 05:09:20 UTC