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

Re: [Repost] Re: Must understand mustUnderstand proposal

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 10:03:30 +0200
Message-ID: <3B023452.3958BED9@crf.canon.fr>
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
CC: Williams Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, XML Protocol Comments <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
David,

I'm fine with just adding an extra sentence to the spec; my
understanding was that the issues list could also be used to track
issues of that sort; but then maybe not?

As for private email, I'm the guilty one; initially, I just wanted to
ping Henrik. I'd be happy if Henrik
reposted his response (included) to my initial ping, then we could
repost ours.

Jean-Jacques.

David Fallside wrote:

> Jean-Jacques, I tend to agree with Henrik on this one. You are
correct that
> processed blocks are removed post-processing and so inter-block
references
> may break. However, it is unclear to me what you would expect an
XMLP
> processor to do in such situations? Checking references between
blocks
> would require the _XMLP_ processor to inspect the contents of
blocks; would
> you also have the XMLP processor check references from blocks to
addresses
> outside the message, and how would you deal with failure in such
> situations? ...... I think this is a slippery slope that we should
avoid.
> I think this is an issue -- for application developers -- and we can
help
> them out by at least warning them of the problem: this warrants an
extra
> sentence in the spec, IMO.
> BTW, is there a reason this discussion is taking place on private
email? If
> not, please move any reply over to dist-app.


   From:
        "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>

09/05/2001 18:55

 Subject:
        RE: [Fwd: Must understand mustUnderstand proposal]
     To:
        "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
    CC:
        "David Fallside" <fallside@us.ibm.com>, "Marc Hadley"
<marc.hadley@sun.com>



Is this an issue that we have to deal with as part of the basic
protocol
or is it something that applications have to deal with? I would say
the
latter and I am not sure I can see what we can do about it without
specific knowledge about the semantics of a header. In other words, I
would say that this is out of scope.

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

>I haven't checked the issues list recently; did you manage to
>include the issue Stuart brought up?


   From:
        "David Fallside" <fallside@us.ibm.com>

ven. 20:01

 Subject:
        Re: [Fwd: Must understand mustUnderstand proposal]
     To:
        "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
    CC:
        Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>,
        Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>



Jean-Jacques, I tend to agree with Henrik on this one. You are correct
that
processed blocks are removed post-processing and so inter-block
references
may break. However, it is unclear to me what you would expect an XMLP
processor to do in such situations? Checking references between blocks

would require the _XMLP_ processor to inspect the contents of blocks;
would
you also have the XMLP processor check references from blocks to
addresses
outside the message, and how would you deal with failure in such
situations? ...... I think this is a slippery slope that we should
avoid.
I think this is an issue -- for application developers -- and we can
help
them out by at least warning them of the problem: this warrants an
extra
sentence in the spec, IMO.
BTW, is there a reason this discussion is taking place on private
email? If
not, please move any reply over to dist-app.
Regards,
David

............................................
David C. Fallside, IBM
Ext Ph: 530.477.7169
Int  Ph: 544.9665
fallside@us.ibm.com




                    "Jean-Jacques
                    Moreau"              To:     Henrik Frystyk
Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
                    <moreau@crf.ca       cc:     David Fallside/Santa
Teresa/IBM@IBMUS, Marc Hadley
                    non.fr>               <marc.hadley@sun.com>
                                         Subject:     Re: [Fwd: Must
understand mustUnderstand proposal]
                    05/11/2001
                    06:55 AM





Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

> Is this an issue that we have to deal with as part of the basic
protocol
> or is it something that applications have to deal with? I would say
the
> latter and I am not sure I can see what we can do about it without
> specific knowledge about the semantics of a header. In other words,
I
> would say that this is out of scope.

Well, the current spec says that processed blocks should be removed
from
messages. If the block that is removed was referenced by another block

within the same message, and that other block is processed at some
later
node, the node will receive a broken message.

So, since we (the basic protocol) specifically ask the receiving end
to
remove processed blocks, I would say that we have created an issue
that we
have to deal with, or at least make people aware of.

Now, when we explore it, we may decide that we will leave it for phase
2.
(David, does W3C have any plans (yet) for phase 2?)

Jean-Jacques.
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2001 04:03:53 GMT

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