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

Re: Issue 25 Proposal

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 18:26:37 +0200
Message-ID: <3B24F13C.C358CFB0@crf.canon.fr>
To: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
CC: David Clay <david.clay@oracle.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Chris,

Talking about simplification, do you think it would be a further simplification to
have Bodies be just ordinary blocks, as has been suggested earlier several times?

Jean-Jacques.

christopher ferris wrote:

> 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 12:26:51 GMT

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