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: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 11:35:48 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D093740D3@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
Cc: "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "XMLP Dist App" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

I think the place where we run into problems is where we have an
ignored/unprocessed header block rather than an understood/processed
header block. This makes it hard to associate header block processing
with the forwarding behavior if forwarding is not desired.


>I don't (yet?) see how changing the default is going to affect 
>negatively any application (a few role name redesigns may be 
>necessary, but I believe that's not many).
>With the changed default, if a module doesn't specify anything 
>about relaying, none is done on processed headers, unprocessed 
>headers would be passed along believing that other node acting 
>the same role would do better.
>On the other hand a module can include relaying in its 
>specification and it would work. My preference to push the 
>relaying specification into modules is based on my opinion 
>that relaying is tied to a header's semantics and therefore it 
>is not an undue burden on the module's designer.
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 14:36:19 UTC

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