- From: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:31:58 -0400 (EDT)
- To: moreau@crf.canon.fr
- Cc: jacek@idoox.com, ruellan@crf.canon.fr, xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:27:11 +0200 > From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr> > To: jones@research.att.com > Cc: jacek@idoox.com, ruellan@crf.canon.fr, xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: Re: Issue 25 Proposal > jones@research.att.com wrote: > > It seems to me that the options are: > > 1) trailers are not blocks but are referenceable elements > > (keep in mind that header blocks can also function simply > > as referenced blocks) > > 2) trailers are targettable blocks but must have mU=0 > > 3) trailers are just like header blocks (targettable and can have mU=1) > > > [...] I'm not sure whether I prefer 1) or 2), but I think it would be a > > mistake to adopt 3). > Could you elaborate on why it would be a mistake to adopt 3) ? > Jean-Jacques. 3) would not permit any reasonable streaming point. You would have to process every message with two passes -- one to do the mU checks and one to process the targeted blocks. --mark
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 10:32:01 UTC