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 17:01:17 -0700
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org, hugo@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF115010BE.78563F0C-ON88256A47.005D4B6C@raleigh.ibm.com >
So "None" headers are meant to be skipped in terms of gathering the list
of headers to process since its not supposed to contain "primary" data
but rather "auxiliary" data that is to be used while processing some other
block in the envelope?  Well, I guess they wouldn't be picked up anyway
since we're assuming there won't be any actors named "None".

OK, so, why wouldn't someone place this auxilary data in the header that
does actually use it or even in the body (if its used by lots of href's) ?

Using headers as placeholders, while probably not disallowed by
the SOAP spec, seems a bit odd to me - but ok - thanks for the


"Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr> on 05/09/2001 09:54:23 AM

To:   Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   xml-dist-app@w3.org, hugo@w3.org
Subject:  Re: Untargetted blocks (was Re: Must understand mustUnderstand

Doug Davis wrote:

> 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
> "None" and "Final" those headers can be referenced by other blocks,
> What am I missing?

I think there is a subtle difference in semantics, in that "None-blocks"
general statements that are not targeted at any specific intermediary, and
there either for information purposes, or for sharing data, whereas
"Final-blocks" are specifically targeted at the final intermediary, and
hope that they'd processed and acted upon by that intermediary, although
have no guarantee (unless you use "mustUnderstand" (or "mustHappen")).

As a side note, I am wondering whether "mustUnderstand" is applicable to

Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2001 20:03:09 UTC

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