Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Marcus Carr <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 16:54:56 +1100
Clark Evans wrote:
> My concerns would be even greater. This conjures up in my
> mind a Java or C++ object where the complete stream
> has to be loaded in memory (or some other random-access
> medium) before it can be used.
Parser theory isn't my bag so I may be wildly off base, but aren't many XML processors going
to require say, a well-formedness check of the whole document before allowing a call?
> If "data stream" processing was treated with *equal*
> importance by the W3C committees, then they would see,
> in many cases, that this complementary approach is at
> least as good as, or in some cases far superior to
> an "data object" approach.
You would almost certainly know better than I, but it seems that the phrase "XML document" can
still be appropriate for both streams and objects, as long as you consider it to be
appropriate. (Otherwise, it is totally inappropriate.) Calling an "XML document" a "data
stream" doesn't effect the efficiency with which you can access it. Also, your distinction may
well be valid, but I don't believe it would be practical to employ terminology that differs
philosophically from that in the XML recommendation.
Marcus Carr email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)