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

RE: Issue 71: Additional actors

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 10:07:00 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D03442040@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "christopher ferris" <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "Mark Jones" <jones@research.att.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

I am not saying whether we can or not or whether this is a good idea or
not but rather trying to understand what the semantics are. The reason
why I might be confused is the examples in [1] where MarkJ says that

"... you have a block that is referenced by some other
block.  A module that employs such headers would generally be designed
to dispatch off of the 'thisDoesSomething' while simply referencing the
'whatever' block.  By targeting 'whatever' at an actor URI that is
guaranteed not to match, the module doesn't have to worry that the final
destination may happen to dispatch (possibly for some other purpose) on
a 'whatever' block."

To me this does seem like replacing the existing semantics of a block in
order for it to behave in some other way than what it normally does. Is
this not the case?

>It seems to me that this issue is not understanding, but
>acting. Mark is asking for a canonical actor URI that can be 
>used to signify that "this block has no target actor" such 
>that it can never be mistaken for a block which MUST be 
>processed (such as in the case where the block is referenced 
>by another block that may have a specific actor.

Henrik

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0004.html
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2001 13:08:11 GMT

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