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

Re: Untargetted blocks (was Re: Must understand mustUnderstand proposal)

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 08:22:59 -0700
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Cc: hugo@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFED9D7D79.38D9EC27-ON88256A47.005487E2@raleigh.ibm.com >
I not quite see the difference between "None" and "Final"/Empty.
Header with a value of "None" will not be removed before it reaches
the final destination because only blocks targeted for a particular
actor will be removed by that actor, just like "Final", right?  And in both
"None" and "Final" those headers can be referenced by other blocks, right?
What am I missing?
-Dug


Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>@w3.org on 05/09/2001 03:24:17 AM

Sent by:  xml-dist-app-request@w3.org


To:   xml-dist-app@w3.org
cc:
Subject:  Untargetted blocks (was Re: Must understand mustUnderstand
      proposal)



* Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr> [2001-05-09 11:38+0200]
> But then I think we have an issue with "anonymous" blocks, ie blocks
which are
> not targeted at any specific intermediary, nor the final destination, but
which
> contain information that can be factored out and be referenced by other
blocks;
> examples: a digital signature, credentials, a photograph. If, by default,
> untargeted (header) blocks are targeted at the ultimate destination,
> "anonymous" blocks are out.
>
> (In a previous thread, "anonymous" blocks used to be called "untargeted"
> blocks, I believe.)
>
> Henrik, "anonymous blocks" sounds like a candidate for the issues list.

In the abstract model draft[1] dated 27 March 2001, section 4.1 reads:

    4. There are reserved actor URI's with special significance
       (actual path to be determined):
       http://.../none    // an untargeted block (may be referenced by
       other blocks)

       SOAP forces the actor for body entries to be the final
       processor.  Untargeted blocks (http://.../none) have no
       correlate in SOAP.

This was removed in the 30 March 2001 version[2]:

    Changes from Draft of 27th March 2001
  [..]
    4. Replaced section 4.1 (now section 4.2) with new text from Mark
       Jones

I have seen discussion[3] between Mark and yourself about these
untargetted/anonymous blocks, but I could not find why they
disappeared. Could somebody point me to an explanation?

Thanks.

  1. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/03/27/XMLProtocolAbstractModel.html
  2. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/03/30/XMLProtocolAbstractModel.html
  3.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Mar/thread.html#68
--
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2001 11:23:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT