[dsdl-comment] Re: FAQ: (1) NVDL versus XProc, (2) Performance of NVDL

Costello, Roger L. scripsit:

> "I'm personally against NVDL, I think I would rather have XProc used to
> deliver multiple schema languages because then I also have all the
> benefits of XProc in my architecture."
>
> I don't know enough about XProc to respond. Can someone who is
> familiar with XProc respond to this?

XProc is a high-level procedural dataflow language for XML, closely
analogous to the Unix shell and associated tools for plain text.
One can specify how data flows through various "pipeline steps",
which can include arbitrary XSLT transforms and validation against
schemas in Schematron, RELAX NG, and W3C XML Schema. One could
implement NVDL using a tool that transformed a NVDL script into
an XProc script.

> "The NVDL processor (dispatcher) adds an additional layer and thus
> introduces a performance penalty.
>
> Does anyone have performance measurements that refutes (or supports)
> this statement?

It can't possibly be slower to do something than to do nothing,
so using NVDL must create *some* performance penalty; then again,
so does validating by any means whatever.

-- 
On the Semantic Web, it's too hard to prove     John Cowan    cowan@ccil.org
you're not a dog.  --Bill de hOra               http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
--
DSDL comments
To unsubscribe, please send a message with the
command  "unsubscribe" to dsdl-comment-request@dsdl.org
(mailto:dsdl-comment-request@dsdl.org?Subject=unsubscribe)