/Joseph Kesselman/:
Because such a stream is not an XML document, I suppose.
More or less. They had to stop at some point; Document is where they drew
the line. There's nothing wrong with higher-level protocols when you have
to transmit multiple documents; if it happens often enough, someone can
pr
Title: Re: Why didn't XML provide a document
separator?
However, bookstores do sell volumes. And there's a darn clear
separator between them.
At 1:42 PM -0500 11/24/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the same reason the
bookstore doesn't sell bookshelves. :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For the same reason the bookstore doesn't
sell bookshelves. :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
11/24/2004 11:35 AM
Please respond to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc
Subject
Why didn't XML provide a
document separator?
I've always been curious why the
>Because such a stream is not an XML document, I suppose.
More or less. They had to stop at some point; Document is where they drew
the line. There's nothing wrong with higher-level protocols when you have
to transmit multiple documents; if it happens often enough, someone can
propose a standa
Because such a stream is not an XML document, I suppose.
Bob Foster
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've always been curious why the XML spec never provided a way to
separate multiple documents in a stream. In almost all my uses of XML,
I've had to come up with a special character to separate the document
I've always been curious why the XML spec never provided a way to
separate multiple documents in a stream. In almost all my uses of XML,
I've had to come up with a special character to separate the documents
as they come down the socket.
---
