- From: Bryan Rasmussen <brs@itst.dk>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:59:30 +0100
- To: 'Michael Kay' <mike@saxonica.com>
- Cc: "'xmlschema-dev@w3.org'" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>, "'petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com'" <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
Damn, an earlier typo in the email address of Pete Cordell added in by me was replicated in your email. Just on the off chance this thread goes any further I thought I should correct it. I've cc'ed Pete on this mail. Sorry for the problem. Cheers, Bryan Rasmussen -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@saxonica.com] Sendt: 17. november 2005 10:47 Til: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com; Bryan Rasmussen Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org; ',petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com' Emne: RE: SV: SV: Schema help > 1) Although most widely used schema validators are fairly > slow, one can in > fact implement the XML schema rules at quite high speed. My team is > hoping to publish some work in that area in coming months, > and I suspect > that others in the industry are working in the same > direction. I think > it's important to the success of any technology we choose > that it be able > to meet the performance needs of our customers. I would resist this kind of thinking. SQL was successful because it put functionality first, and left implementors to devise optimisation strategies. Users need a constraint language that is capable of expressing arbitrary constraints on the content of a document, and it should be left to the implementor to work out which of these constraints can be evaluated in streaming mode and which can't. SQL today allows the full power of the query language to be used to express integrity contraints, and users learn when they need to restrict their ambitions to meet performance requirements. 90% of applications aren't performance critical anyway. There's no point telling users to go and use some other technology to do their validation, the other technology isn't going to be fast either. Michael Kay
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2005 10:02:23 UTC