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

Re: entity header

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:46:30 -0500
Message-Id: <C5574C86-4832-11D8-894A-00039396E15A@bea.com>
Cc: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>

On Jan 16, 2004, at 9:11 AM, Jacek Kopecky wrote:

> Mark,
> the UC2 is the driving scenario for this feature. The word 'cache'
> implies an HTTP cache which carries a lot of complexity and so it's not
> called out in UC2.

Well, that's one type of cache; I've maintained that it isn't necessary 
to do a full HTTP cache, so I think we're in agreement.

> But even for a full-fledged cache using the Representation header it's
> the Infoset that feeds the cache and it doesn't matter, what the XOP
> MIME packages look like. Perhaps my previous comment was misdirected by
> misinterpretation of your text.

I'm not sure I understand this paragraph. The use case for the 
Representation header is surfacing a MIME part in the Infoset, so that 
people who want to do UC2 can talk about it -- as a whole -- in XML 

> I think we agree that XOP/MTOM don't care about Representation, that in
> fact Representation doesn't care about those two (but the combination
> is, in fact, useful), and that for a full cache more than just
> content-type is necessary. My latest proposal for Representation header
> gives an example how further information can be added to the header by
> an extension. We may specify that extension, if we choose to do so.
> Personally, I don't think it's worth it, I think the bare and simple
> Representation will do in practice.

Is your proposal roughly equivalent to mine;
Received on Friday, 16 January 2004 09:46:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:25 UTC