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

RE: INT: Re: Intermediary Discussion

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:09:53 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F1921CA@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com'" <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Cc: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, XML Protocol Comments <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
> From: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com [mailto:Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com]
> Sent: 07 February 2001 20:14
> To: Mark Nottingham
> Cc: Martin Gudgin; XML Protocol Comments
> Subject: Re: INT: Re: Intermediary Discussion
> 
> 
> 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.

Strongly agree!

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 
> 1-617-693-4036
> Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regards,

Stuart
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 17:10:09 GMT

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