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

Re: Proposed resolution of issue 101: relationship between header and body blocks

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:57:42 +0100
Message-ID: <3BF39196.36CF3E00@crf.canon.fr>
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
CC: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com, dug@us.ibm.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org, ruellan@crf.canon.fr
I am incomfortable with this. As far as an intermediary is concerned, the
"main purpose" of the message is _not_ the body. If we are talking about
simple intermediaries, this may not matter much; but it does matter once we
start talking about more elaborate intermediaries, intermediaries which may
perform processing of equal importance to that of the final receiver.

Besides, why just restrict the Body element to at most one child, if we then
say that that one child may have multiple children? Are we not being
somewhat inconsistent with ourselves?


Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

> IMO, a simple way of putting it is to say that the <body> is defined as
> a well-known block. Just as any other block, it has an open content
> model and can contain as many immediate child elements as it wants.
> [...]
> As part of the guidelines for how to *use* the body we indicate that
> this is where the "main purpose" of the message goes.
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2001 04:59:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:16 UTC