- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 20:55:13 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27498
David Lee <dlee@marklogic.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dlee@marklogic.com
--- Comment #10 from David Lee <dlee@marklogic.com> ---
A few years back I started a discussion on this and created a wiki with quite a
few of these issues.
http://xml.calldei.com/XDMSerialize
Mike encouraged me to start with Use Cases ... and I definitely agree.
For example, a primary use case I have is "streaming" XDM producers. For
example producing log messages or long lived sessions.
The Efficient XML group (while I was on it) had several real world 'customers'
who needed this as well (but for efficient XML), and the solution is non-ideal.
One example was for "Instant Message" applications. each message is an XML
Element but the entire stream is a long lasting document because there is no
standardized way of representing streams of XML documents ... The requirement
is to get each message without over-reading the socket ... That may be a edge
case, but consider typical "feeds' ... twitter, facebook, stocks, news, message
queues.
Or simply log files ... how to parse a log file before its "done" ...
This site is still up and discusses many of the use cases I considered. I put
this on hold when I realized I didn't have a clean solution to item types like
maps or functions, and that some use cases have contradictory requirements such
as full fidelity vs minimal output.
An example - do you really need to expose node identity ? without it you cant
reconstruct the XDM perfectly but is that needed ? for what cases ?
Its good to see some renewed interest in this topic.
If we cant get XDM (of some sort ... ) in and out of our XDM Tools using some
format that has a reasonable chance of being recognized by another tool set
... that a big barrier ... To me, the "human readable text output" is
interesting but not that problematic as any vendor can solve that differently
... (humans are tolerant of differences).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:15 UTC