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

RE: [AMG] Thoughts about path and intermediaries

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:19:25 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D01448420@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "'Martin Gudgin'" <marting@develop.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Frystyk <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;

Isn't there really three options and not just two:

1) One can support targeting only

2) One can support targeting and routing

3) One can support neither

Given that we have as part of our charter and several requirements
addressing intermediaries 3) doesn't sound interesting.

However, it seems perfectly plausible to define a processing model that
takes into account targeting without actually defining routing. As an
example this is in fact what SOAP does. Once you have the targeting, it
appears that pretty much anything else including routing can be built on
top. Unless we can find proof that this is not the case then I would favor
1).

Henrik
Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 13:24:09 GMT

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