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

Re: Must understand mustUnderstand proposal

From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 12:57:35 -0400
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF19BC1367.9B718BF4-ON85256A41.005CACDF@lotus.com>

Jean-Jaques Moreau writes:

>> You probably mean a body block, since untargeted
>> header blocks cannot be processed unless referenced
>> by some other targeted block.

Does the specification say that?  As I've said before, my understanding is
that except in the case of RPC, BODY is carefully defined as a synonym for
untargeted header, except that BODY is required.  I will say that I find
this partial symmetry disturbing, but there it is.  I would probably prefer
to have them either completely symmetric (BODY not required) or to really
call out why BODY is different, whether anything special is said about
order of processing wrt/ other untargeted headers, etc.   Anyway, if they
are the same thing as the current spec. says, then they can be processed
under the same circumstances.  In particular, I don't see anything that
prevents processing such a header after the body, and certainly nothing
that prevents processing it just because it is unreferenced.  Did I miss

Indeed, this is one of the reasons I stated on the call yesterday (and I
understand you missed the call) that I think we need to carefully
straighten out at least the implications of <body > and untargeted
<header>, and also I think the whole notion of path and routing, before we
can really get mustUnderstand right.

Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2001 13:01:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:13 UTC