• From: "Johnson, Matthew C. (LNG-ALB)" <Matthew.C.Johnson@l...>
• To: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:08:45 -0500

Ok, I understand your point now.  Thanks.

Matt


-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@s...] 
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 2:20 PM
To: Johnson, Matthew C. (LNG-ALB); xml-dev@l...
Subject: RE:  Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)

> The logfile use case is a great one.  But I would be pretty 
> upset if a hospital record got dropped.  Or in the 
> environment I work in, it would not be a good thing if I 
> couldn't guarantee that a caselaw document didn't get 
> dropped.  I don't know the actual likelihood that the network 
> would fail right in between two root elements but it's a 
> situation that should be considered...shouldn't it?

The point I've been trying to make is that if your transport is so
unreliable that you need to add redundancy at the application level,
then
you ought to be using something better than this.

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/

• References:
  • Re: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)
    • From: COUTHURES Alain <alain.couthures@a...>
  • Re: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)
    • From: Richard Salz <rsalz@u...>
  • Re: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)
    • From: "Andrew Welch" <andrew.j.welch@g...>
  • RE: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • RE: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)
    • From: "Johnson, Matthew C. (LNG-ALB)" <Matthew.C.Johnson@l...>
  • RE: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • RE: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)
    • From: "Johnson, Matthew C. (LNG-ALB)" <Matthew.C.Johnson@l...>
  • RE: Nested Documents (was: XML 2.0)
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>