>
>
> Your proposals are technically cleaner, but I am really worried about
> performance ...
>
After some thinking I believe that an incremental schema verification could
be efficiently implemented on the server side.
Most deltas carry only "insertChar" or "deleteChar" operations which do not
invalidate the schema anyway.
To identify the schema we could go the HTML way, i.e.
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/DTD/strict.dtd";>
This way the server can check for the well-known-name. Perhaps it has some
hard coded support for this. Otherwise the server must fetch the schema via
HTTP.
Greetings
Torben
>
>
>
>
> 2010/2/2 Tad Glines <[email protected]>
>
> Interoperability requires that clients and servers agree on the wave
>> content structure (schema). There is work in process for the conversation
>> model, but there is no general mdoel for how a client or server can describe
>> the allowed schema of a wave it creates. In XML this is already solved. And,
>> while wave documents are not XML, they allow a similar structure. It would
>> seem to me that a very useful addition to wave would be the ability specify
>> and determine the schema associated with a wave/wavelet/document.
>>
>> There is already some model code that supports this (DocumentSchema and
>> BootstrapDocument), but there is no way for a server to know which schema,
>> if any, should be enforced. There seems to be two possible ways to handle
>> this. One is to associate a schema with a particular namespace prefix. So,
>> for example, documents with names starting with "b+" would have to conform
>> to the blip schema and documents with the name "conversation" would be
>> required to conform the conversation schema and blips references therein
>> would have to conform to the blip schema. An alternative would be to add
>> some means to specify a schema for a wave/wavelet/document upon creation or
>> later during modification. In the later case, there would need to be a
>> mechanism for specifying the schema to use, either by well known name, of by
>> including the actual specification.
>>
>> The schema to namespace mapping seems the easiest to implement but the
>> other method provides more possible flexibility at the expense of additional
>> complexity and possible conflict resolution issues.
>>
>> Has Google, or anyone else considered this matter?
>>
>> -tad
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Wave Protocol" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> [email protected]<wave-protocol%[email protected]>
>> .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------
> Prof. Torben Weis
> Universitaet Duisburg-Essen
> [email protected]
>
--
---------------------------
Prof. Torben Weis
Universitaet Duisburg-Essen
[email protected]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave
Protocol" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
