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

Re: Has the semantics for Modules changed?

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 15:57:59 +0100
Message-ID: <3AB76FF6.95C4E1F5@crf.canon.fr>
To: "Williams Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: frystyk@microsoft.com, "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@akamai.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Stuart,

"Williams, Stuart" wrote:

> I think the intent of the structures in fig-2.1 was to be more explicit
> about the model of intermediaries, blocks and handlers. I don't deny that
> 'tagging' a block with some means of identifying its originator at some
> granularity of module or application is useful. It just that I don't think
> that such tagging is implied by the diagram (an certainly goes undiscussed
> in the document). [...]

I may have been referring to an earlier version of the diagram, when arrows
used to be bidirectional, and which made be believe the following exchange was
possible, as part of a larger request:
  HandlerD(intermediary)  --Block4--> HandlerG(receiver)
  HandlerD(intermediary)  <--Block4'-- HandlerG(receiver)

Tagging looks like an interesting candidate solution for implementing this
kind of exchange; but I guess, strictly speaking, you are right: there is no
implication in the diagram (or if there is one, it's probably the other way
round).

Jean-Jacques.
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2001 09:58:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:59 GMT