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

RE: DR604

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:51:00 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F191F90@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'ohurley@iona.com'" <ohurley@iona.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Oisin,

I think the easy fix is to add the word 'content' to the end of DR604. Which

"...This requirement implies it must be possible apply many transport or
application protocol bindings to the XP message without information loss
from the message (content). "

In terms of what intermediaries can touch and what transformations they can
perform on the semantics of an interaction... its not clear to me that we
have established any stated requirements - eg. do say request/response
interactions fully nest through a bunch of intermediaries or is it a
hop-by-hop chain of request/response pairs; what can an intermediary that
signs a message touch... but thats for a different section...



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oisín Hurley [mailto:ohurley@iona.com]
> Sent: 14 November 2000 17:15
> To: Williams, Stuart; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: DR604
> 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 Wednesday, 15 November 2000 12:54:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:10 UTC