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 10:44:31 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200106151444.KAA01256@glad.research.att.com>
To: chris.ferris@east.sun.com, jones@research.att.com
Cc: jacek@idoox.com, marting@develop.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr, ruellan@crf.canon.fr, xml-dist-app@w3.org
  > Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 07:44:38 -0400
  > From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
  > To: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>
  > Cc: jacek@idoox.com, marting@develop.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr,
  >         ruellan@crf.canon.fr, xml-dist-app@w3.org
  > Subject: Re: Issue 25 Proposal

  > If two blocks are related (let us say that one mU block
  > refers to an unordered mU block that is distantly placed in the
  > you-dont-need-to-understand section, then streaming won't necessarily
  > be viable. 

  > Cheers,

  > Chris

Chris,

I wasn't saying that putting the mU blocks up front constitutes a
sufficient condition for successful streaming.  When you have
inter-block dependencies, you will of course have to buffer up to the
referenced item in any syntactic arrangement.  Putting the mU blocks
up front does constitute a necessary condition, however, for earliest
possible streaming in streamable cases.

--mark
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 10:44:33 GMT

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