Streams, protocols, documents and fragments was: RE: Document
s and Document Fragments (Was RE: XML Information Set Requirements, W3C N
Mark.Birbeck at iedigital.net
Mon Feb 22 03:55:07 GMT 1999
Jonathan Borden wrote:
[after using stock ticker example]
> So, the problem here is not one with XML, rather the protocol used to
> transmit documents, HTTP and SMTP send one MIME message per
> PDU, streaming
> protocols can be defined which transmit multiple documents.
Less sure later on though. I'm OK here:
> <term>document</term> is defined as in the XML spec.
> documents are well
Yes. Important to stress because it makes the 'never-closing stream' a
> when a document fragment is isolated from its parent
> document, it
> becomes a standalone document.
> a document may contain a prolog. a document fragment may not.
> a document may
> contain a !DOCTYPE definition (DTD), a document fragment may
> not. Hence all
> document fragments are legal documents but not all documents are legal
> document fragments.
The term 'document fragment' is not in XML 1.0, and my point was that we
don't need new terminology - uberdocuments, document fragments, and so
on - to understand these concepts. All you have said is that an XML
document can have a prolog ... or not. If you give me a well-formed 'XML
document' I have no way of knowing where that came from. It could be a
standalone text file, or it could be a node from a larger XML document,
but where it came from isn't going to help it; it will stand or fall on
its own merit - i.e., is it well-formed? So why confuse things with all
these different notions?
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;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev