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

[Done Repost] Re: Must understand mustUnderstand proposal

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 10:06:48 +0200
Message-ID: <3B023518.CB3FE8C2@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>
I will (in my new capacity as Issues List editor) add this as an issue
with
a proposal to resolve it as an editorial item. Henrik, please make the

posting as Jean-Jacques so I can point to it from the issues list.


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




                    "Jean-Jacques
                    Moreau"              To:     David Fallside/Santa
Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
                    <moreau@crf.ca       cc:     Henrik Frystyk
Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, Marc
Hadley
                    non.fr>               <marc.hadley@sun.com>,
Jean-Jacques Moreau
<moreau@crf.canon.fr>
                                         Subject:     Re: [Fwd: Must
understand mustUnderstand proposal]
                    05/15/2001
                    06:51 AM





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 you 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.
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2001 04:06:54 GMT

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