- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 22:03:05 +0100
- To: "'Dirk-Willem van Gulik'" <dirkx@webweaving.org>
- Cc: <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
> > 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. Yes - I agree "Accept" or an "Accept"-like mechanism is best. Andy -------- Original Message -------- > From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org <> > Date: > > 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 17:03:29 UTC