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

Re: Reqs/AM - Comments/Questions

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:04:07 -0700
To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3c.org
Message-ID: <20010419110404.B15793@akamai.com>
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 07:15:41AM -0400, Doug Davis wrote:

> - R802
>   Need to define "processing" - does having to XML parse the message
>   mean "process"?  There's been some discussion on the soapbuilders
>   mailing list about what SOAP processing nodes can and can not do
>   to certain parts of a SOAP envelope.  Defining "process" in XMLP
>   might help clear some of those up.

This complaint has come up a number of times, but I don't know of it
being addressed.

I *think* the original motivation was to assure that intermediaries
wouldn't have to buffer an entire message if the handlers that are
invoked on them don't require it. The implications of this re:
parsing aren't clear to me (but probably are to others in the group).

'processing' is a bad term for this, but it slipped through. Perhaps
we can revise the requirement to reflect the above, if consensus
supports it.

Generally re: 'processing', There's been some discussion about the
constraints on message processing in XMLP, but I don't think there's
consensus yet about what they should be.

Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2001 14:04:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:12 UTC