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

Re: Finalised Glossary Definitions

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 10:53:30 +0100
Message-ID: <3ABB1D1A.322C8CE9@crf.canon.fr>
To: David Clay <david.clay@oracle.com>
CC: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>, frystyk@microsoft.com, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com, "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
David,

The processor/handler may not care about the semantics of blocks, even in the scenario you
suggest. For example, the encryption Block would be targetted at the final destination, and
reference the RPC Block, which itself would be targetted at "none"; things would then be
automatically processed in the right order. Of course, I am assuming static-targetting here,
and things may be different with late-targetting.

Jean-Jacques.

David Clay wrote:

> What about the order in which handlers must be dispatched?  E.g.,
> decryption must precede RPC invocation.  Would dependencies such as
> this be considered semantics of a block?
>
> Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
>
> >
> > Mark, I am wondering why (1) would have to know "about the semantics of a block" to do
> > any sort of dispatching. After all, a Web browser does not know anything about the
> > semantics of a particular MIME document, and is nevertheless capable of firing up the
> > appropriate plugin. Why would block dispatching be different?
> >
> > Jean-Jacques.
Received on Friday, 23 March 2001 04:54:10 GMT

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