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

Re: Issue 25 Proposal

From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:03:46 -0400
Message-ID: <3B24EBE2.33AD807A@east.sun.com>
To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
CC: David Clay <david.clay@oracle.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
I'm curious as to what manner of discomfort? Header blocks
could be considered "pre-processing" for the Body and Trailer
blocks "post-processing" of the Body. 

For instance, if I wanted to have the message signed
after processing of the Body, a Trailer might be much
more appropriate than a Header block which needed to
be deferred until after the Body (and/or other Headers)
were processed.

I think that we should strive for simplification. Adding
in (or simply clarifying in) the ability to stick
"stuff" in the Envelope after the Body element without
providing any processing guidance as has been provided
for Headers seems to me to be arbitrary and would lead to
confusion not increased clarity.

Cheers,

Chris
Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> 
> christopher ferris wrote:
> 
> > I am curious as to why the trailers aren't
> > XMLP Blocks?
> 
> Making trailers ordinary blocks (and hence having a unified processing
> model) would indeed simplify the spec, remove a number of ambiguities, and
> enable us to build simpler (and more maintainable) implementations. However,
> this option does seem to cause some incomfort...
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
Received on Monday, 11 June 2001 12:06:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT