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? Yes. > If so, then this is > really just going to be another form of packaging. Anything beyond > this starts encroaching on the application space. There's definitely some overlap with packaging, but it is not a general packaging solution. For example, you couldn't package simplified XSLT stylesheets with this solution, for all the reasons we've discussed here. > > 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. Ok. But I think that if one were building a general model, that failure in this situation would likely cover the needs of most apps. Do you agree? > > 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. Agreed. I'm not trying to solve world hunger. 8-) MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@p... http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
|
