W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > July 2003

Re: regarding the resolution of issue 431

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:23:57 -0400
To: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Cc: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>, Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFCB8B2FE7.E3F17ABC-ON85256D64.00495CC3-85256D64.004999C3@us.ibm.com>

Hmmm... 

It isn't clear to me that preserving order is a necessarily good idea. In 
fact, I think
that no significance should be accorded the order of parts carried as 
attachments.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

xml-dist-app-request@w3.org wrote on 07/14/2003 01:50:30 PM:

> 
> On Friday, Jul 11, 2003, at 07:41 US/Eastern, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> >
> > I also motion to close the (narrower) issue 431 because there seems to
> > be consensus in the WG that intermediaries can, in general, change 
what
> > is optimized. If we come up with a requirement that is contrary to 
this
> > (which seems extremely unlikely, considering the voices in the group)
> > the requirement will be a new information and we'll happily reopen the
> > issue.
> >
> As an example, somebody (I don't remember who) mentioned, during the 
> last telcon, a requirement that attachment order be preserved. I think 
> its premature to start closing potentially related issues until such 
> requirements are clear. Of course we can always close then re-open 
> issues, but what's the point in doing that ?
> 
> Marc.
> 
> --
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
> 
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2003 09:27:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:14 GMT