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

Re: entity header

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 10:00:35 -0800
Message-Id: <64B2F465-413B-11D8-A34B-00039396E15A@bea.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>

Counter-proposal:

<x:Entity>
    <x:metadata>
       <x:header name="bar">baz</x:header>
       <x:header name="boo">1</x:header>
       ...
    </x:metadata>
    <x:content>
       ...
    </x:content>
</x:Entity>

with extensibility in attributes as well as children of entity and 
metadata. It is ONLY a means of representing a MIME(-like) entity; 
application semantic is not implied.



On Dec 9, 2003, at 1:52 PM, Yves Lafon wrote:

>
> Here is something that enable multiple behaviour.
> The rationale for having such entity header is related to UC2, 
> embedding a
> representation of a resource (usually a web resource) to an endpoint 
> that
> might or not be able to deference it. Also the capabilities are 
> unknown,
> so the "generic HTTP cache behaviour" has to be possible (but not
> mandatory)
> Here is my proposal...
>
> <foo:Entity>
>   <context>
>     <request>
>       <header name="Accept">application/soap+xml, image/svg+xml, 
> image/jpeg</head>
>     </request>
>   </context>
>   <rawmeta>
>     <header name="Vary">Accept</header>
>     <header name="Content-Type">image/svg+xml</header>
>      ...
>   </rawmeta>
>   <meta>
>     <property name="Content-Type">image/svg+xml</property>
>   </meta>
>   <processing>
>      http://www.w3.org/2003/12/fullhttpcache
>   </processing>
>   <body>...</body>
> </foo:Entity>
>
>
> Where rawmeta is the metadata received, without requiring understanding
> it, meta being the one known (I suggest to put only common MIME 
> headers,
> like Content-Type).
> And a processing EII pointing to a URI defining the default behaviour. 
> If
> unknown we can propose the safe bahaviour of "get from the net and if 
> it
> fail, use the copy". But we will need to explicit the different
> behaviours for each URI used.
>
> Do we need to put the request URI there as well? (in context).
>
> Note that I made a special case for a negotiated resource, where many
> things are needed. depending on the resource and the processing model
> used, most header can be absent, leading to a far mor simple version of
> it.
>
> Comments?
>
> -- 
> Yves Lafon - W3C
> "Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2004 13:00:37 UTC

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