XML Information Set Requirements, W3C Note 18-February-1999

[Marcus Carr]

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.


--
Regards,

Marcus Carr                      email:  mrc at allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
Allette Systems (Australia)      www:    http://www.allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
       - Einstein



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)