W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2002

RE: Soap Message Canonicalization (SM-C14N)

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:50:30 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D067C83E3@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, <rsalz@zolera.com>, "xml-dist-app" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

I agree with the "re-insert" but not sure how we can require it to say
*where* other than in special cases where it knows about other blocks
that may also be present. How can it say anything regarding header
blocks it doesn't know about? What if we address the general case while
allowing more special cases to take advantage of additional knowledge?
That is, saying something like (just a rough draft):

In the general case, a SOAP node MAY insert header blocks into a SOAP
message without specific knowledge about other header blocks. In the
case of known interdependencies between header blocks, the semantics of
such header blocks may define more specific rules as to where and under
what circumstances the header blocks can be inserted into a SOAP
message.

>I think it's a fairly hard requirement on the specification 
>for a module that requires re-insertion. It's not machine
>testable, necessarily, but one certainly can look at such
>a specification ask:  "does it tell you whether to reinsert,
>and if so where?".

Does that come closer?

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 17:51:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT