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

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

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 12:51:58 +0200
Message-ID: <3AFBC44E.BBF9331A@crf.canon.fr>
To: "Marc J. Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
CC: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, hugo@w3.org
Also, putting the "auxiliary" data in the body explicitely targets the ultimate
recepient, whereas this data may only be aimed at intermediaries.

BTW, handlers need access to all blocks, not just those targeted at them, since
the latter may reference the former (via href's). It has also been pointed out
in the past that caching or logging intermediaries need to see the complete set
of blocks, not just the subgraph(s) targeted at them.


"Marc J. Hadley" wrote:

> Doug Davis wrote:
> >
> > 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) ?
> >
> The only reason I can see is to prevent duplication when more than one
> header block needs to refer to the "None" header block. As you say,
> putting the data in the body is one way to solve this but might not
> always be desirable if the block contains meta information that isn't
> logically part of the body.
> Marc.
> --
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
> Tel: +44 1252 423740
> Int: x23740
Received on Friday, 11 May 2001 06:52:49 UTC

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