Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Mark Birbeck <Mark.Birbeck@iedigital.net>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 17:37:52 -0000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim.Shaw@wdr.com [SMTP:Tim.Shaw@wdr.com]
> I agree with the arguments so far - just send lots of little
> documents, and the protocol is just a layer on top, to be removed
> the input stream processor.
> But, isn't the example below not wf XML - it doesn't seem to have
You don't need a prolog to be well-formed ...
> I have no problem with that either - again, you need a client
> stream processor to pick apart the XML ... what do I call them?
> 'chunks' ... chunks and, using some client side determination,
> add the
> prolog - and then pass it to the XML parser as a WF (and
> valid) XML document.
> This is 'trivial', and interleaving the protocol stuff is no
> problem (plenty of examples, and I've done it at least 5 times
> different socket-based systems).
> My concern tho' is that we require a piece of Client-side stream
> processing logic to pick up the XML 'chunks' and convert them to
> WF XML - and this is not standard (read 'generally agreed' to
> mention of inertia).
... so you don't need to 'create' a document from the packets.
However, I don't see any reason why we can't include prolog
information in this model, if, for example, you need a DTD for the
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)