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: Nilo Mitra (EUS) <Nilo.Mitra@am1.ericsson.se>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:54:45 -0500
Message-ID: <C358DED30DFED41192E100508BB3922704102D34@eamrcnt716.exu.ericsson.se>
To: "'noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com'" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Noah et al:

In a part of your proposal, you wrote:


> Another possibility that has been raised would be to change the
> default behavior to be: "leave in place any header entries that are
> not processed".  

I wonder what the opposition is to this solution. It seems to be the simplest. 
Could you, or someone else, provide some rationale on why this might not fit the bill?

> Optionally, we could additionally define a
> relayIfProcessed override if the group felt it to be worth the
> trouble.  My impression is that some who have considered changing the
> default rules like the idea, but some feel that it doesn't meet a need
> to have headers that do indeed disappear when unprocessed.

What was the rationale for unprocessed headers (targeted at "next") to disappear?
> For the
> record, I quite like the idea, but (a) am not ready to take 
> the lead in
> pushing it in the face of any significant opposition and (b) would not
> want to go back to last call if this were deemed a serious change--
> I'm not sure it is.

Is there indeed significant opposition to it?
I can't see how changing the default handling for non-MU headers targeted
at next can be seen as a go-back-to-last-call issue.


> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 11:54:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:21 UTC