Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Matthew Sergeant (EML)" <Matthew.Sergeant@eml.ericsson.se>
- To: "'Mark Birbeck'" <Mark.Birbeck@iedigital.net>, XML Dev <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:46:50 +0100
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Birbeck [SMTP:Mark.Birbeck@iedigital.net]
> John Cowan wrote:
> > Mark Birbeck wrote:
> > > <stockPrice>
> > > <ticker>MSFT</ticker>
> > > <price>1000</price>
> > > </stockPrice>
> > >
> > > and then at the end of the day, sending:
> > >
> > > </stockPrices>
> > > No-one so far in the discussion has argued that this is good XML -
> > I so argue. It is well-formed, though not valid, XML.
> It's NOT well-formed until the end of the day, when you receive the
> closing tag. Until that time 'stockPrices' is not a complete element,
> and therefore not a complete XML document.
> > Validity inherently can't be checked until you've processed
> Nor can well-formedness.
I don't want to argue this - just add a point.
It really depends whether you're interested in proving the positive
or the negative. If you're trying to prove that it is well formed you're
SOOL until the end. But at least you can prove that it's not-not well formed
so far in the stream... It's a compromise I guess.
Still - I agree with your general point. What would be better would
be a stream of XML documents - like network packets - fully self contained.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)