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

Re: Thoughts about path and intermediaries

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:09:40 -0800
To: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010209080932.A30242@akamai.com>

Sorry, I think I missed the definition of 'path' (which seems pretty
key here). Is there a reference?


On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 12:47:51PM -0000, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> 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
> 
> 

-- 
Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)
Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 11:09:42 GMT

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