Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Thursday 24 January 2002 10:12 am, Mark Baker wrote: > Right. But I'm only interested in the serialized structure, not > anything to do with activation and binding with that structure > (Bento vs. Opendoc). I think they're somewhat related though I understand the point you're making. Bento was good primarily because it did/assumed very little. I assume you're thinking along the same lines? If so, then this is really just going to be another form of packaging. Anything beyond this starts encroaching on the application space. > That depends. If any subdocument acts as a container, and the > element of that subdocument which does the containing is required to > be processed (e.g. smil:skip-content="false"), then if a suitable > compound processor cannot be constructed, processing must fail. I think that would depend on the application though. > > Defining a dispatch model is very good. A useful step, but it > > ignores the problem of *building the application* and *packaging > > the application*... and claims that "we'll just download the code" > > don't really work, because you *still* can miss components.... or > > you open yourself up to the well-known Trojan horse problem with > > embedded downloadable code. > > It doesn't "ignore" those things. It says those are orthogonal > issues; the "what" versus the "how". I think these, in particular, are closely tied. > I understand what you mean, but I'm not convinced of the value of > it. Anyhow, that's a separate topic. Perhaps so... I think being able to constrain processing to be an important part of packaging applications. > For packaging, I'm assuming a compound document with containment > purely by value. The point I was making is that in the context of a given application, dispatch is usually a trivial part of the overall application.
|
