W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2001

Re: xp requirement document specifies headers

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:04:20 +0100 (MET)
To: "Mark A. Jones" <jones@research.att.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.32.0101242255460.16127-100000@tarantula.inria.fr>
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Mark A. Jones wrote:

> Some of the usage scenarios/cases [DS21] anticipate SAX-style
> incremental parsing and processing of XP messages by the recipient.
> Long messages could conceivably never be fully stored anywhere!!

That was exactly my point for the footer justification, as you generate
the "body", and provided the underlying protocol gives no assurance of the
integrity of the transmission, you may want to have to send a md5sum of
whatever to be sure that it has been transmitted successfully, and it
can't be done beforehand because of lack of memory for example.

In fact, I don't think it is a problem of header/footer, but more
generally of body (or bodies) and processing helpers, the latter can be
meta description of the body, processing instructions, transport
instructions, meant to the final destination or intermediaries or
whatever, and depending on the kind of transaction you are dealing with,
the order may change (and you can still have optimisation like "there is
nothing after the body", so an intermediary can stop processing after what
will be in that case headers).

Of course we can do even more complex things with parallel processing of
processing instructions within a message or synchronization and such, but
it may become way too complex :)

-- 
Yves Lafon - W3C / Jigsaw - XML Protocol - HTTP
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2001 17:04:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:58 GMT