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

Re: An analysis of mustUnderstand and related issues

From: Rich Salz <rsalz@zolera.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 21:47:22 -0400
Message-ID: <3B0DB9AA.6C853A1F@zolera.com>
To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Step 2 can be read as either: "Verify that everything
> mandatory is supported and then start processing" or "Verify/process,
> verify/process."  I infer that Henrik reads it as the former.  I can say
> that interpretation never occurred to me, but it is plausible.

I agree we need to decide if "streaming processors" are explicitly
supported, not supported, or maybe.  While it's not necessarily Occam's
razor, "sax or dom" certainly does seem to separate the issues clearly.
:)

> So, step 2 is to decide whether the requirement to inspect all headers
> before doing any processing is indeed practical.  I think this is a
> question that should be discussed with soapbuilders.

I wonder if it's really an issue; it seems at best an optimization: 
don't start something when you know you're going to fail.  But since you
have to be prepared to handle (internal) failure anyway, I'm not sure
what's gained.

> Step 3:  If we agree on this clarification (I'm not in favor yet, but it is
> the next thing to explore), then we should try to convince ourselves

Looks like you cut out some lines you didnt mean to.

> I strongly believe that any piece of software should be free to
> act as any actor.

Ditto, for the same reasons.

	/r$
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2001 21:42:15 GMT

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