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

Re: Issue 71: Additional actors

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 10:09:58 -0700
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>, Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010906100953.C1758@mnot.net>

My source for 'None' was the AM - what's the history of this there?


On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 10:07:00AM -0700, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
 
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2001 13:09:59 GMT

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