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

Re: INT: Re: Intermediary Discussion

From: Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 14:16:25 -0700
Message-ID: <3A81BB29.7050804@netscape.com>
To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>, Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, XML Protocol Comments <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
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.

There is not that much difference between headers and other orthogonal 
attachments.  This is the great argument why attachments should not be 
left up to the binding.  Even though SOAP may try to make them out of 
bounds, applications need them, intermediaries need to pass them through 
or may need to manipulate them, and both require a clean set of rules 
for dealing with them that is not tied to a particular binding.

Ray Whitmer
rayw@netscape.com
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 17:11:57 GMT

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