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

Re: Proposed resolution of issue 101: relationship between headerand body blocks

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 17:34:37 +0100 (CET)
To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111221731520.15886-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Jean-Jacques,
 IIRC the question of whether a processor could just decide to
process headers that are not explicitly targetted at it has
already been discussed. I don't know where the discussions ended,
but it was always my feeling that (in absence of an extension
saying otherwise) a node must not process headers that are not
targetted at it.
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:

 > [Responding to your second point.]
 >
 > I think this is an issue, and that we should either disallow the
 > combination mU+none, or explicitely state in the processing model
 > that we only consider blocks _explicitely_ targetted at the current
 > node.
 >
 > Jean-Jacques.
 >
 > Jacek Kopecky wrote:
 >
 > > [...] As for mU on a header targeted to .../none, you are right, it
 > > is
 > > ignored. At least I understand it as though it must be ignored
 > > (unless some extension says otherwise but then extensions can do
 > > just about anything anyway).
 > >  About failing on referencing into an not understood mU header:
 > > this is a matter of layering. As it is now, the Encoding layer
 > > comes in _after_ the processing model so all mU failures will be
 > > resolved before the encoding rules are applied to the data.
 > > Therefore no mU fault can be generated as a result of some block
 > > referencing a not understood header because when we talk
 > > "referencing", we don't care about "understanding" any more.
 > >  Just my understanding, I may be mistaken, of course. 8-)
 > >
 > >                    Jacek Kopecky
 > >
 > >                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
 > >                   http://www.systinet.com/
 > >
 > > On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
 > >
 > >  > I am feeling somewhat incomfortable with point b),
 > >  > especially if the next step is to disallow multiple body
 > >  > blocks. Unless there is strong evidence that this is a
 > >  > necessary restriction, I would suggest that we remove b)
 > >  > from the proposal.
 > >  >
 > >  > On a related note, I am have been wondering recently about
 > >  > the processing model and mU blocks. Am I correct in
 > >  > thinking that, today, we allow body blocks to reference
 > >  > hearder blocks, and vice-versa? Does it make sense for an
 > >  > mU header block to be targetted at none? Does it make sense
 > >  > for a body block to reference an mU header block? Is an
 > >  > intermediary supposed to abort processing if it finds a
 > >  > non-mU header block that references an mU header block it
 > >  > does not understand (i.e. is section 2.5 meant to be
 > >  > recursive?)?
 > >  >
 > >  > Jean-Jacques.
 > >  >
 > >  >
 >
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2001 11:34:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:05 GMT