Corr. (Was: A library(pio) for the Web 2.0)

Hi,
 Why only phrase_from_file/2 and not also
phrase_from_url/2. Its not that difficult to
do, you can do it with change_arg/2 and
 nothing else! Lets see what we have so far:
 Trealla Prolog:
    Base on memory mapping chars. So basically
    this could be judged as a further argument
    in favor of chars versus codes. But its
    not Web 2.0, works only for files.
 https://github.com/trealla-prolog/trealla/blob/main/library/pio.pl
 SWI-Prolog:
    Based on turning a stream into a lazy list.
    Requires attributed variables and repositionable
    streams. The stream is opened with open/3 but
    maybe could be opened with http_open/3 as well?
 https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/swipl-devel/blob/master/library/pio.pl
 To be continued...
 Bye
 Mild Shock schrieb:

Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!
>
 > don’t think it could really do
 > the “ghost text” effect.
>
It wouldn’t do the ghost text, only assist
it. There was a misunderstanding how “ghost
texts” work. Maybe you were thinking, that
the “ghost text” is part of the first response.
>
But usually the “ghost text” is a second response:
>
 > waiting for completion candidates to be suggested
>
Well you don’t use it for your primary
typing completion which is preferably fast.
The first response might give context information,
for the second request which provides a
different type of completion.
>
But the first response is not responsible
for any timing towards the second request.
That anyway happens in the client. And it
doesn’t hurt if the first response is
from a stupid channel.
>
Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!