- From: Digitome Ltd. <digitome@iol.ie>
- Date: Sun, 12 Jan 1997 12:36:07 +0000
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
The more I read about BOS, ilink storage strategies, multi-pass XML parsing etc. the more I see a tension between client-side and server-side implementation of XML processing. I mean, an XML document - as authored - might perhaps have ilinks spread willy-nilly but that does not mean it has to be served to the client in that form. Equally, AF processing could be organised for maximum authoring convenience in the "raw" XML document and then SPAMM'ed to attributes before the client sees it. The disadvantages of server side processing have already been discussed on this list. The advantages, in terms of simplicity, for XML browser tools however, would surely be significant. What I am trying to get at is that XML docs as seen by the client can either be "raw" XML or "cooked" XML that simplifies (and speeds up!) client-side implementation. Cooked in terms of AFs. Cooked in terms of BOS. Cooked in terms of ... The transition from raw to cooked - if done at the server side - does not complicate the client. Simple client - more complex servers. Having said that, BOS (I like DJD's term "document working set") or multiple parsing of XML docs, will be, IMO, kinda tough on the client end. Analogies abound. The first that springs to mind is the difference between a networked database application that downloads records looking for matches and one that sends SQL to the server and retrieves matching records only. Whether or not cooked XML is an option seems to me to depend on what client are advised to do with XML docs over an above browsing. Are they intended to be thrown away NC style or harvested once for local re-use? For throwaway docs, cooked is fine. For harvesting, cooked is perhaps, far from fine. Sean Mc Grath (Member of the XML-KISS iniative).
Received on Sunday, 12 January 1997 06:56:58 UTC