W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2001

Re: mid-course correction on abstract model for module processing

From: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:15:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200104031315.JAA05769@glad.research.att.com>
To: hugo@w3.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org
	Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 17:16:24 -0400
	From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
	To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
	Subject: Re: mid-course correction on abstract model for module processing

	[ Sorry for the *late* response about that... ]

	* Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr> [2001-03-21 17:00+0100]
	> Mark Jones wrote:
	[ Distinction between header and body ]
	> > The main distinction as I see it is where the responsibility lies
	> > for generating responses.  Some handler in some module at the
	> > destination must take on that responsibility, and having a body
	> > makes a convenient place to designate that responsibility.
	> 
	> That's fine. We could do it differently, for example using an
	> attribute or special URI; this would, in my opinion, simplify the
	> dispatching machinery (no need to look for a body tag; just use
	> actors and namespaces everywhere, it will work automatically). But
	> you are right in pointing out we need to carry out the "body"
	> semantics, somehow.

	The whole point about this body/header difference was that carrying
	out the "body" semantics did not require a different element and that
	it could be done with a single element and attributes.

	I still believe that, as Jean-Jacques suggested, it makes more sense
	to use only one element.

I like the elegance of a single construct (block), perhaps nested
inside a grouping elements (Blocks??).  Henrik points out that there
is a requirement, however, R802, that may lead to some representation
that physically partitions the message:

  R802 -- XMLP must also enable processing intermediaries to locate
          and process XMLP blocks intended for them without processing the
          entire message.

I'm not sure what representations might satisfy this.  Also, I am not
sure how this requirement squares with the possibility of forward
references using the id/href mechanism.  What if header blocks
reference body blocks?

--mark

Mark Jones
AT&T Labs

	-- 
	Hugo Haas - W3C
	mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2001 09:16:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:00 GMT