- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:34:36 -0500
- To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 10:09:34AM -0800, Ugo Corda wrote: > > All addresses impact the meaning of a message. > > I am not convinced this is true in the general case. In some cases the interposition of an intermediary is completely orthogonal to the meaning of the message as it was intended by the service provider and the service user (so much so that they might both be completely unaware of its existence - see for example the case of intermediaries inserted after initial deployment for purposes like global monitoring of a system). You mean that the address of this intermediary isn't relevant? Yes, I agree, but that address isn't part of the message. Sorry, I guess that's what you meant by the transparent proxy case in your previous message. I didn't understand what you meant by it when I responded. FWIW, there's also more complexity here with this with respect to addresses not in the message affecting the meaning, viz a viz HTTP 1.0 permitting URI short hand and the need for the Host header in HTTP 1.1 to fix that (i.e. make it self-descriptive so that virtual hosting could be supported). But I was just talking about the self-descriptive case. Mark.
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2003 13:32:03 UTC