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

Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 16:30:05 +0200 (MEST)
To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
cc: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0210161619510.27434-100000@tarantula.inria.fr>

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:

> I would tend to agree with you (and, to be honest, this is the
> part of the proposal I am hesitant about). However:
>
> 1) we should try to solve the indicated scenario without going
> back to WD;
>
> 2) the notion of role is already blurred with that of routing
> ("SOAP roles MAY be named with a URI useable to route SOAP
> messages to an appropriate SOAP node."), so the situation may not
> be worse after that change (not a perfect reason, though).
>
> Are you suggesting we should use "relayIfNotProcessed" instead?
> Is that a go-back-to-WD solution? (Yves?)

Noah proposed a role as (if I understood right) it would be easier in
implementations to add a hook for a new role than to change the behaviour
of existing roles if a new "relayIfNotProcessed" or "stickyBlock" is
introduced.
Also it should be noted that adding a new role with a clearly defined
model is more orthogonal to the existing work than adding a new attribute,
as in this case, interaction with other already-defined attribute has to
be proven harmless.
If the new attribute is not badly interacting with other, then both fix
are ok to me (8ball-wise).
Also it should be added to the test collection and have interoperable
implementations.
Thanks,

-- 
Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 10:30:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT