[standards-jig] new RFC draft

Iain Shigeoka iainshigeoka at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 5 18:08:31 UTC 2002

On 2/4/02 2:19 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at jabber.org> 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?

I actually like XML packet better.  Packets can contain other packets so I
don't think it is a problem that some will contain multiple packets.  And if
a response will contain multiple packets not grouped under a common parent
packet, then it does.  It is a bit deceptive to say it is one chunk.

I also associate packets with communication protocols where chunks sounds
more like cooking, extreme sports, or information parsing.  :)


Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

More information about the Standards mailing list