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

RE: Action Item : brief mustHappen analysis

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:35:46 -0400
Message-ID: <4F47DCFADC8DD5118D2B00508B952D96061FCD@salsa.allaire.com>
To: "'christopher ferris'" <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
Cc: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

> What I suggested was that a careless handler could inadvertently
> modify the dependsOn in a manner that actually changed what was
> expected.
> e.g.
> Let's say that A does its thing and writes out a dependsOn in the
> C header an empty list! That would be a bad thing.

It would be a bug, if the dependsOn used to also include B... we can't
prevent bugs in general.

> I was also suggesting that it complicated the processing model
> unnecessarily because the handler for A needs to modify the header
> targetted at C. This means that it needs to scan all of the headers
> looking for a dependsOn that includes the IDREF of the ID of the 
> just processed header block.

Gotcha.  Yes, you're right - see my last note to Rich.  I'd just rather see
the blocks somehow encapsulated instead of at the top level.  But then
again, we're not actually designing this, are we? :)

Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2001 16:36:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:15 UTC