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

Re: INT: Re: Intermediary Discussion

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:23:10 -0800
To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
Cc: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, XML Protocol Comments <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20010207132308.B29221@akamai.com>

Are you suggesting that there should be a divorce between the nature
of the transport binding (in HTTP's case, request/response) and the
XP message exchange pattern?


On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 03:14:24PM -0500, Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:
> Mark Nottingham writes:
> 
> >> However, the design shouldn't address this in the 'core'
> >> intermediary definition - it's too dependent on the 
> >> transport binding and influenced by the application.
> 
> Many applications will want to approach XP in a binding-independent 
> manner.  I think it is therefore important to have a clean set of rules 
> for the proper use and implications of headers/intermediaries, independent 
> of the binding.  Indeed, the role of the binding should be to provide 
> implementation of those semantics.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 

-- 
Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 16:23:47 GMT

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