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

Re: Issue 25 Proposal

From: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:31:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106151431.KAA01230@glad.research.att.com>
To: moreau@crf.canon.fr
Cc: jacek@idoox.com, ruellan@crf.canon.fr, xml-dist-app@w3.org
  > Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:27:11 +0200
  > From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
  > To: jones@research.att.com
  > Cc: jacek@idoox.com, ruellan@crf.canon.fr, xml-dist-app@w3.org
  > Subject: Re: Issue 25 Proposal

  > jones@research.att.com wrote:

  > > It seems to me that the options are:
  > > 1) trailers are not blocks but are referenceable elements
  > >    (keep in mind that header blocks can also function simply
  > >     as referenced blocks)
  > > 2) trailers are targettable blocks but must have mU=0
  > > 3) trailers are just like header blocks (targettable and can have mU=1)
  > 
  > > [...] I'm not sure whether I prefer 1) or 2), but I think it would be a
  > > mistake to adopt 3).

  > Could you elaborate on why it would be a mistake to adopt 3) ?

  > Jean-Jacques.

3) would not permit any reasonable streaming point.  You would have
to process every message with two passes -- one to do the mU checks
and one to process the targeted blocks.

--mark
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 10:32:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT