Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > It's clearly a communication between a direct component (acting 'in' the > pipe) and an indirect component (acting 'on' the pipe). > > Passing information from direct to indirect components 'inside the pipe' > it's, IMO, wrong and unnecessary.
Does metadata belong into the XML document or "somewhere else", that is the question. For "somewhere else" I see these options: a) XML schema. Does provide a place for meta data like data types, but not really for workflow data. However, there's a standard for processing. b) WfMC or similar XML languages. Does provide support for workflow data, but there is AFAIK no processing standard. c) Home-grown solution. No standard whatsoever, but optimized to the problem domain. Compare this to: d) Put workflow data into the XML content stream. There's a standard for processing and a standard for placement (either home-grown, which is fully supported by the XML standard or something like WfMC). The drawback, as you mentioned, is that content data and meta data are mixed in the same stream. I am undecided on whether that's evil or not, because I am unable to fully determine the practical consequences. cheers, Ulrich -- Ulrich Mayring DENIC eG, Systementwicklung --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
