[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Streaming XML (Was RE: XML Information Set Requirements, W3C Note 18

• From: Marcelo Cantos <marcelo@m...>
• To: xml-dev@i...
• Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:39:13 +1100

On Sun, Feb 21, 1999 at 02:37:38PM -0000, Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Couldn't find a coin - so I suppose I should respond:
> 
> Marcelo Cantos wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 20, 1999 at 04:08:24PM -0000, Mark Birbeck wrote:
> > >then we can't put anything on that
> > > wire other than news headlines (and really you shouldn't process
> > > anything until you receive that closing element, but I know 
> > > that's what
> > > people are requesting they can do).
> > 
> > I disagree with that last parenthesised remark.  Stream-based parsers
> > do and indeed should process data as it arrives.  XML browsers _most
> > certainly_ should do so.
> > 
> > Not that I disagree with your overall point (I haven't really given it
> > that much thought), but the above is definitely wrong IMO.
> 
> You seem to have missed the point of the discussion.

So say you.

> The question is
> whether it is legitimate to open a stream of XML with some sort of
> element like:
> 
>     <stockPrices>
> 
> and then spend the rest of the day sending out things like:
> 
>     <stockPrice>
>         <ticker>MSFT</ticker>
>         <price>1000</price>
>     </stockPrice>
> 
> and then at the end of the day, sending:
> 
>     </stockPrices>
> 
> No-one so far in the discussion has argued that this is good XML -
> except you Marcelo, but you can be excused because you haven't given it
> much thought -  because if you were validating this you should not (CAN
> NOT!) say the document 'stockPrices' is valid until you receive the
> closing element. And that would mean you couldn't process the
> intervening prices until you had validated the entire document, and that
> would mean your data feed would be useless.

Which part of "Not that I disagree with your overall point" eludes
you, Mark?  Did I not make it abundantly clear that I was merely
pointing out small error in the body of your post, rather than
attempting to dispute your thesis?

For the record, I quite agree that wrapping things up in virtual
documents is generally pointless.  Hence your conclusion that only I
consider the above to be good XML is unfounded because I don't.  And
so is your charge that I have missed the point of the discussion.

Please read what I write, and don't jump up and down and get all
defensive the instant someone tells you you're wrong!  Speaking of
which, _do_ you think XML browsers should refuse to display anything
until the root element is closed?


Cheers,
Marcelo

-- 
http://www.simdb.com/~marcelo/

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• References:
  • RE: Streaming XML (Was RE: XML Information Set Requirements, W3C Note 18-February-1999)
    • From: Mark Birbeck <Mark.Birbeck@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ANNOUNCE: New XHTML WD
• Next by Date: Re: having to deal with mal-formed XML
• Previous by thread: Re: Streaming XML (Was RE: XML Information Set Requirements, W3C Note 18-February-1999)
• Next by thread: New MDSAX and Coins release
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread