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

RE: Issue 71: Additional actors

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:21:24 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D04A22502@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Mark Jones" <jones@research.att.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, <mnot@mnot.net>

Putting aside the question of why a sender would want to put something
in the message that must not be understood, it seems to me to be better
dealt with using encapsulation as this does not put us in a situation
where we have to redefine what "understand" means. 

<s:Envelope xmlns:s="http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope">
 <s:Header>
  <a:DontTouchThis xmlns:a="http://www.example.org">
     ...
  </a:DontTouchThis>
 </s:Header>
 <s:Body>
   ...
 </s:Body>
</s:Envelope>

Note again, that we don't say anything about what processing means - it
may well mean simply "parse this blob".

Henrik

>It is the looseness in the phrase "it may well be ignored" 
>that rather sums it up.  The inserter of such a block may want 
>to say "it jolly well SHOULD/MUST be ignored" (by actors other 
>than those whose blocks refer to it, etc.).
>
>It behaves sort of like the inverse of mustunderstand -- 
>mustnotthinkyouunderstand.  If the final destination happened 
>to be outfitted with code which would otherwise want to 
>"dispatch" based on the presence of such a block, there is no 
>other convenient way for the sender to clearly indicate that 
>(in this particular case) it should not do so.
Received on Friday, 31 August 2001 20:21:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT