- From: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:44:31 -0400 (EDT)
- To: chris.ferris@east.sun.com, jones@research.att.com
- Cc: jacek@idoox.com, marting@develop.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr, ruellan@crf.canon.fr, xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 07:44:38 -0400 > From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com> > To: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com> > Cc: jacek@idoox.com, marting@develop.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr, > ruellan@crf.canon.fr, xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: Re: Issue 25 Proposal > If two blocks are related (let us say that one mU block > refers to an unordered mU block that is distantly placed in the > you-dont-need-to-understand section, then streaming won't necessarily > be viable. > Cheers, > Chris Chris, I wasn't saying that putting the mU blocks up front constitutes a sufficient condition for successful streaming. When you have inter-block dependencies, you will of course have to buffer up to the referenced item in any syntactic arrangement. Putting the mU blocks up front does constitute a necessary condition, however, for earliest possible streaming in streamable cases. --mark
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 10:44:33 UTC