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

RE: XP Service URIs

From: Kevin Mitchell <kevin.mitchell@xmls.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:02:29 -0500
Message-ID: <2E26643EEFEB974F81E01F521FF2BCEC0178A03C@NEW.xmlsmail.xmls.com>
To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
 I agree.

Can we word this like R806 which says:

"Targeting - XML Protocol must define mechanisms to enable determination of
which message components are eligible for processing by a particular
processing intermediary. Message components must be able to be targeted at
one or more processing intermediaries."

So something like:

"XML Protocol must define mechanisms to enable determination of which
message components are eligible for processing by a particular processing
endpoint. Message components must be able to be targeted at one or more
processing endpoint."

This wording raises an interesting question: Is there a requirement to
support mulitple
endpoints? I think there is. R806 clearly states that message components can
be targeted at > 1 intermediaries. I think this should also be true for
endpoints.

-----Original Message-----
From: Oisín Hurley
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Sent: 11/22/2000 7:04 AM
Subject: RE: XP Service URIs

>Allowing optional expression of destination URI sounds like a good
idea.

In fact, I think mandatory expression of the destination URI is even
better. There has been some conversation about the need to identify
the service instance endpoint in a separate manner to the protocol
instance endpoint. That is, to identify the XP processor for whom
the message is intended.

>Does expression of the destination URI need to be in the base protocol
or
is
>it sufficient if the base protocol has sufficient extensibility
mechanisms
>so that destination URI (and other routing information?) can be added?

Definitely in the base protocol model I would think.

>I tend to think of this and similar questions as though we are asking
of
XML
>whether the XML 1.0 specification needed to define a "person" element,
a
>"title" element, etc. or whether it is sufficient to do as XML 1.0 did
and
>provide only the extensibility mechanism.  XML 1.0 plus namespaces
certainly
>did define a few things, for example the "xmlns" attribute and
namespace.
>Is routing information more like "xmlns" or more like "title"?

A namespace can give you an idea of the service 'type' that you want to
address, but there is more info necessary to point to a service
'instance'.


 --oh

--
ohurley at iona dot com
+353 1 637 2639
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2000 10:02:36 GMT

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