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

[AMG] Thoughts about path and intermediaries

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:47:51 -0000
Message-ID: <002a01c09296$86626940$0200a8c0@greyarea>
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 GMT

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