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

RE: mid-course correction on abstract model for module processing

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 17:20:38 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F19232B@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Mark Jones'" <jones@research.att.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Mark,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Jones [mailto:jones@research.att.com]
> Sent: 22 March 2001 17:06
> To: jones@research.att.com; moreau@crf.canon.fr; skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Cc: frystyk@microsoft.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: mid-course correction on abstract model for module
> processing
> 
> 
> 	From skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com Thu Mar 22 11:46 EST 2001
> 	Delivered-To: jones@research.att.com
> 	From: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> 	To: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>,
> 	        Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>
> 	Cc: frystyk@microsoft.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
> 	Subject: RE: mid-course correction on abstract model for module
processing
> 	Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:46:25 -0000
> 	MIME-Version: 1.0
> 
> 	Mark,
> 
> 	Quick question... you mention untargetted blocks that don't get
removed by
> 	intermediary processing en-route. However, my understanding of SOAP
is that
> 	blocks (header entries) without an explicit target are implictly
targetted
> 	at the ultimate recipient. If that is the model we carry over, how
would we
> 	designated a block as 'untargetted' rather than at the default
target (the
> 	ultimate recipient)?
> 
> Use the actor URI in a similar manner to its use to denote the "next"
> processor:  http://.../none

Great... thanks, should have read your 4.1 piece more carefully, all becomes
clear.

> 	The abstract question is there a clear conceptual distinction
between
> 	untargetted and targetted at a default target. The practical
question (which
> 	actually I'm less concerned about) is how would be denote the
difference
> 	(syntax/angle bracket question).
> 
> The semantics is simple.  The block is available for reference by
> other blocks, but isn't otherwise going to be dispatched to a
> particular handler by the top level processor algorithm.
> 
> SOAP apparently lets blocks reference other blocks, whether explicitly
> or implicitly targetted.  If explicitly targetted at an intermediary,
> it gets a little tricky since you would have to make sure that the
> block was targeted at the LAST such intermediary (if that can be known
> in advance).  By implicitly targetting them at the ultimate recipient
> they are available at all intermediaries and never removed.  The
> downside is that they will be targetted at the ultimate recipient
> whether it wants to see them or not.  The "none" URI just provides a
> cleaner construct for exactly saying "this block is targetted at no
> processor".
> 
> --mark
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 
> 	Stuart

Thanks,

Stuart
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2001 12:20:44 GMT

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