- From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:47:51 -0000
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen \(E-mail\)" <frystyk@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau \(E-mail\)" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "John Ibbotson \(E-mail\)" <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>, "Krishna Sankar \(E-mail\)" <ksankar@cisco.com>, "Lynne Thompson \(E-mail\)" <Lynne.Thompson@unisys.com>, "Marc Hadley \(E-mail\)" <marc.hadley@uk.sun.com>, "Mark Baker \(E-mail\)" <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM>, "Nick Smilonich" <nick.smilonich@unisys.com>, "Oisin Hurley \(E-mail\)" <ohurley@iona.com>, "Scott Isaacson \(E-mail\)" <SISAACSON@novell.com>, "Yves Lafon \(E-mail\)" <ylafon@w3.org>
- Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Having spent some time thinking about this Stuart and I have come to the following conclusion; If the XML Protocol Layer directly supports the notion of a path then we can support processing intermediaries that sit between the sender and the ultimate recipient. We can also support the targeting of XML Protocol Modules at particular XML Protocol Handlers located at those processing intermediaries. Conversely if the XML Protocol Layer does NOT support the notion of a path then it becomes inherently single-hop. In this latter case path becomes an application level construct and not part of the core definition of the XML Protocol. This would simplify the core definition of XML Protocol while still allowing applications to layer intermediary processing on top of XML Protocol. Thoughts, comments, flames etc. to the usual address Gudge and Stuart
Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 07:50:18 UTC