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

Re: Must understand mustUnderstand proposal

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 12:01:11 -0700
To: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Cc: XML Protocol Comments <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20010503120111.C13375@mnot.net>
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 03:49:21PM +0800, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> 3.    Does an intermediary *always* remove the headers targeted at it? If
> not then I think we need some way of annotating them as 'processed'.

While SOAP assumes this, I'd note that there is very little
implementation of SOAP headers and intermediaries out there, and
arguably they comprise the most underspecified part of it.

It seems like there are several headers which may be processed (ah,
that word again) by several intermediaries; for example, caching,
logging, etc.

Then again, does mustUnderstand really make sense in that context?
These sorts of services are really advisory hints about what can be
done, not instructions about what must be done to provide the
service, so maybe the semantic of mustUnderstand *is* mustConsume in
this context.

Thoughts? Can anyone think of modules that could be targetted at
multiple devices where mustUnderstand would make sense?

Mark Nottingham
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2001 15:01:22 UTC

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