- From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik <dirkx@webweaving.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
- To: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > I wasn't thinking of having a controlled flow - just a simple, single TCP > stream. I expected that. And hence I see no fundamental benefit of ordering on granule/request/reply level for the protocol itself. Now on implementation: > rows. Think SAX for result rows. ..cut.. > Now the client can incrementally parse this and generate each row of the ..cut.. > As I said, it is not a good idea :-) - it only saves the client from having > to have such a parser. You argue for a certain type of parser which may have a certain benefit in a certain case. I'd suggest that if that is important in a certain case (and I am sure there are others) then: > Better to have an explicitly streamable format and > ask for it by MIME type as there is so much custom server and client code. with some sort of Accept or alike hinting. Dw
Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 14:47:18 UTC