W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > November 2000

RE: DR604

From: Oisín Hurley <ohurley@iona.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 17:15:15 -0000
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001701c04e5e$74bd28a0$9f03020a@psychobilly>
Hi Stuart

> The semantics of an interaction are also bound up in the events that arise
> during the course of an interaction, not just the content of the messages
> exchanged.

Indeed, this is true. However I think it may be fair to say that there is
an 'expected interaction semantics' which is present prior to the actual
message interchange and that this is what is meant by this requirement.

Coupled with the requirement for extension, it may  be possible for
intermediaries to change then course of the envelope and thus depart
from the expected interaction semantics. The provision of routing
instruction makes this a viable means to tailor the exchange to your
particular requirement or to resolve damage or queue issues.

> Delivery sequence may have semantics, single delivery may be
> important, silent loss may be an issue, loss of a 'fault'
> response may be an
> issue. I'd like to fully understand what is scoped as "information loss".

Hmm. We all know that information cannot be destroyed, merely transformed :)
I think what this means is that the information in the basic message model
(i.e. body of the message, all mandatory headers and attachments) must reach
the intended destination intact. The rule is that intermediaries in the
chain
of delivery must not remove or mutate these data items.

 cheers
   --oh

--
ohurley at iona dot com
+353 1 637 2639
Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2000 12:19:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:57 GMT