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

Re: Issue 71: Additional actors

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 13:18:05 -0700
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010901131801.A3465@mnot.net>

I had thought that a non-matching actor would be the way to do this;

  <s:Envelope xmlns:s="http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope">
   <s:Header>
    <a:whatever xmlns:a="http://www.example.org" id="foo"
     s:actor="http:/wherever/this/actor/will/never/match">
       ...
    </a:whatever>
    <b:thisDoesSomething xmlns:b="http://www.example.org">
      <blah ref="#foo"/>
    </b:thisDoesSomething>
   </s:Header>
   <s:Body>
     ...
   </s:Body>
  </s:Envelope>

My question was whether we should dictate a standard non-matching
actor, to make sure that it really, really doesn't match anything.


On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 05:21:24PM -0700, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> 
> Putting aside the question of why a sender would want to put something
> in the message that must not be understood, it seems to me to be better
> dealt with using encapsulation as this does not put us in a situation
> where we have to redefine what "understand" means. 
> 
> <s:Envelope xmlns:s="http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope">
>  <s:Header>
>   <a:DontTouchThis xmlns:a="http://www.example.org">
>      ...
>   </a:DontTouchThis>
>  </s:Header>
>  <s:Body>
>    ...
>  </s:Body>
> </s:Envelope>
> 
> Note again, that we don't say anything about what processing means - it
> may well mean simply "parse this blob".
> 
> Henrik
> 
> >It is the looseness in the phrase "it may well be ignored" 
> >that rather sums it up.  The inserter of such a block may want 
> >to say "it jolly well SHOULD/MUST be ignored" (by actors other 
> >than those whose blocks refer to it, etc.).
> >
> >It behaves sort of like the inverse of mustunderstand -- 
> >mustnotthinkyouunderstand.  If the final destination happened 
> >to be outfitted with code which would otherwise want to 
> >"dispatch" based on the presence of such a block, there is no 
> >other convenient way for the sender to clearly indicate that 
> >(in this particular case) it should not do so.
> 

-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
 
Received on Saturday, 1 September 2001 16:18:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT