[standards-jig] new RFC draft

Daniel Veillard veillard at redhat.com
Mon Feb 4 22:49:07 UTC 2002


On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 04:19:51PM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> >   Now that I think about it we should avoid "XML Fragment" terminology.
> > It conflicts with the XML Fragment Interchange Working Draft [1] and may
> > confuse people. What about "XML Chunk" instead, I don't think there is 
> > an XML Chunk spec anywhere at least I don't know about it ;-)
> 
> I like "XML Chunk". Sometimes we use the term "XML Packet" -- is that too
> reminiscent of TCP/IP? Also a big XML Chunk could be sent as multiple
> packets, so it would probably be good to avoid using "packet", eh?
> 
> BTW, I plan to release a new version of the RFC tonight. I've added lots
> of goodies since the last release. :)

Okay I will try to read that one seriously once I ahve time.
Oh, easy but boring thing, could you try to run the examples through
a parser to make sure. Doing that on one of the early WebDav specs was ...
interesting ;-)

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Veillard      | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard at redhat.com  | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit  http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/



More information about the Standards mailing list