W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2004

Re: proposal for issue 457

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:43:38 +0100
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Cc: XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1076683418.5053.59.camel@localhost>

Yves,

just as a point of clarification, I expect this proposed htx:env element
is to be a child of a Representation header, right?

If so, do you really need the envelope? Its children can become children
of the Representation header with no information or capability loss.

I also have other minor restructuring suggestions, should be apparent
from the following pseudoXML:

<Representation>
 <htx:Request name="GET" version="HTTP/1.1">
   <!-- the URI is on the Representation -->
   <htx:Header name="Accept">
     image/png,image/jpeg,image/gif
   </htx:Header>
   <htx:Header name="Accept-Encoding">
     gzip,deflate,compress;q=0.9
   </htx:Header>
   <htx:Header name="Date">
     Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:23:28 GMT
   </htx:Header>
   [...]
 </htx:Request>
 <htx:Reply version="HTTP/1.1" status="200">
   <!-- the status string is unnecessary, isn't it? -->
   <htx:Header name="Content-Type">
     image/png
   </htx:Header>
   <htx:Header name="Date">
     Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:23:28 GMT
   </htx:Header>
   [...]
 </htx:Reply>
</Representation>

Best regards,

Jacek

On Fri, 2004-02-13 at 15:25, Yves Lafon wrote:
> Here is a proposal to accomodate the HTTP use case for UC2 to allow an
> implementation to act as a URI resolver using a local cache.
> Note that it is not a proposal to actually describe a complete portable
> cache (ex: it does not address the variant lists)
> The goal here is to give all information used to reconstruct the
> information a cache would need.
> The calculation of the age and cache validity is up to the application, as
> the originator should not be forced to undertand the caching issues of
> HTTP/1.1
> Exemple:
> 
> <htx:env xmlns:htx="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/xop/http">
>  <htx:request>
>    <htx:request-line name="GET" version="HTTP/1.1">
>      /someuri/us.png
>    </htx:request-line>
>    <htx:header name="Accept">
>     image/png,image/jpeg,image/gif
>    </htx:header>
>    <htx:header name="Accept-Encoding">
>     gzip,deflate,compress;q=0.9
>    </htx:header>
>    <htx:header name="Date">
>      Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:23:28 GMT
>    </htx:header>
>    [...]
>  </htx:request>
>  <htx:reply>
>   <htx:status-line version="HTTP/1.1" status="200">
>    OK
>   </htx:status-line>
>   <htx:header name="Content-Type">
>     image/png
>   <htx:header>
>   <htx:header name="Date">
>    Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:23:28 GMT
>   </htx:header>
>     [...]
>   </htx:reply>
> </htx:env>
> 
> It is mainly the complete headers and request/status line for the request
> and the reply, as context of the attached binary.
> 
> Also, for completeness, the local time when the request is issued (usually
> there in the Date: header) and the local time of the same machine when the
> reply is received would be a good addition to cope with clock issues,
> something like <htx:time>{RFC 1036 time string}</htx:time> in
> <htx:request> and <htx:reply>
> 
> The only remaining issue regarding time (not fixed) is the possible clock
> desynchronization between the SOAP sender and the SOAP recipient.
Received on Friday, 13 February 2004 09:43:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 22:28:13 UTC