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
Wed Feb 24 21:38:00 GMT 1999
James Tauber wrote:
> Mark, what are your views on the W3C's activity on XML
> Fragments? Do I infer
> correctly that you disagree with the need?
Not at all James - I just think that different things become issues at
different levels. I believe that everything we need to get (logical)
documents out of a database, or from a file, to a parser, where - as you
rightly corrected my previous post - that document becomes a 'physical'
document, is already in XML 1.0.
i.e., file -> parser, or database -> stream -> parser, or whatever other
things people come up with.
BUT, once you're 'inside' the parser, other issues arise - linking,
filtering, fragments, etc. I think it's important to keep the layers
separate to ensure the purity of XML as effectively an 'interface'.
PS Sorry for the delay. This has been sitting here for a day - I didn't
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