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: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 22:18:20 +0100 (CET)
To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0111262202160.1880-100000@mail.idoox.com>
 Doug,
 your version of what I'm saying is right but very incomplete.
 I'm saying that during the message processing per the processing
model, the mU attribute on the second header is effectively
ignored by never being checked for. So I'm saying (actually, the
processing model is saying) that the processor must check mU on
the header blocks targeted at it, and that no processor can take
blocks targeted at 'none' as targeted at said processor.
 I'm also saying that during encoding processing, the attributes
on the referencing accessor are to be ignored.
 I don't see any inconsistence in the two paragraphs above. They
are dealing with completely different, orthogonal issues so they
can not be inconsistent because inconsistence means different
handling of same stuff.
 The example can make it seem as though it is inconsistent, but a
different example could make both paragraphs ignore attributes on
the same element.
 See you tomorrow. 8-)

                   Jacek Kopecky

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



On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Doug Davis wrote:

 > Jean-Jacques' example:
 > >  <envelope>
 > >    <header>
 > >      <xx:user
 > >          href="#example.org"
 > >          actor="next"><name>fred</name></xx:user>
 > >      <yy:company
 > >          mU="true"
 > >          id="example.org"
 > >          actor="none"><name>Example Org</name></yy:company>
 > >    </header>
 > >    <body>...</>
 > >  </envelope>
 >
 > Jacek:
 >   You've said that the encoding rules are separate from
 > the processing model rules - however, doesn't it seem
 > in consistent to say that for encoding (issue 171) we
 > should ignore the attributes on the 1st header, but for
 > the processing model we should NOT ignore them and instead
 > ignore the attributes on the 2nd header?  I would prefer
 > a more consistent design.
 >
 > -Dug
 >
 >
Received on Monday, 26 November 2001 16:18:27 GMT

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