Streams, protocols, documents and fragments

Mark Birbeck Mark.Birbeck at
Wed Feb 24 17:29:26 GMT 1999

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Tim.Shaw at [SMTP:Tim.Shaw at]
>      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
> by 
>      the input stream processor.
>      But, isn't the example below not wf XML - it doesn't seem to have
> a 
>      prolog? 
	You don't need a prolog to be well-formed ...
>      I have no problem with that either - again, you need a client
> side 
>      stream processor to pick apart the XML ... what do I call them?
> FSA 
>      'chunks' ... chunks and, using some client side determination,
> add the 
>      prolog - and then pass it to the XML parser as a WF (and
> hopefully 
>      valid) XML document.
>      This is 'trivial', and interleaving the protocol stuff is no
> great 
>      problem (plenty of examples, and I've done it at least 5 times
> for 
>      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
> Valid 
>      WF XML - and this is not standard (read 'generally agreed' to
> avoid 
>      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:xml-dev at
Archived as: and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list