- 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