Re: Inneficient XML cross post

[Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>]

> Cross posting is relevant where all groups are affected by the threads.  I
> stand by this decision beucase of the follwing:

1.  the archtiecture group is highly relevant.  I think everyone agrees with
that.
2.  The transport group is responsible for messaging.  This thread about
designing an efficient message is highly relevant.
3.  The requirements group MUST ensure that the messages are able to meet
the needs of businesss.

If the leaders of the groups feel a thread is not relevant,  please post
something to that effect.

Now, on to the reply:

>
> <William said>Duane Nickull questions whether recursion would be
> needed,...</SNIP>

I questioned whether "unnecessary" resursion would have an impact on XML
parsing and processing.  Please read what I have written.

I also explicity stated that the comments I gave were out of context and
referred to the XML code snippet only.  The authors probably had really good
reasons for consctructing the XML the way it appeared.  Those reasons were
not considered in my comments.

The real design rule I would like to see is that the XML messages be as
"thin" and "efficient" as possible.  This means that they will stil have to
be robust enough to meet the needs of businesses, both small and large using
multibyte character sets.  The messages will also have to be able to capture
and carry the full semantic meaning (the EDI folk will be of great help
here) and process information ofthe participants.

I agree with Matt, Mike et al and I think we should wait and see what Rik
Drummonds group comes out with in April after their in term meeting.  That
can then be compared to the needs of business and inspected by the techies.
Keep in mind my earlier comments about the relatively sparse data on what
constitutes efficient XML at this point.

Duane Nickull