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

Re: Proposed resolution to issue 455

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 08:52:19 -0500
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>, XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-id: <A89C7980-6B87-11D8-B923-000A95BC8D92@Sun.COM>
On Feb 28, 2004, at 2:23 PM, Martin Gudgin wrote:

> My understanding of 'none' is that anyone can look at it. But no-one 
> can
> remove it.
> Specifically targetted blocks ( not 'none' ) can only be looked at by a
> node playing that role.
I have a different understanding :-(. Anyone can 'look' at any part of 
the message:

Section 2.6 says "SOAP nodes MAY make reference to any information in 
the  SOAP envelope when processing a SOAP body or SOAP header block. 
For example,  a caching function can cache the entire SOAP message, if 

However, only those header blocks targeted at roles played by the node 
can be processed. IMO use of a Representation header block requires a 
node to process the Representation header block, not merely look at it.


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM [mailto:Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM]
>> Sent: 27 February 2004 21:32
>> To: Martin Gudgin
>> Cc: Jacek Kopecky; XMLP Dist App
>> Subject: Re: Proposed resolution to issue 455
>> On Feb 26, 2004, at 2:51 PM, Martin Gudgin wrote:
>>>>> But surely such a URI would be refer "to the 'none'
>> header block in
>>>>> some way"
>>>> I was thinking more along the lines of another header block whose
>>>> semantics specifically enable one or more Representation
>> headers. You
>>>> could say that any header that contains a URI that matches
>> the URI of
>>>> the Representation header does that implicitly but the
>> linkage seems
>>>> rather weak. This would also mean that you couldn't
>> support the use
>>>> case in the issue:
>>>>> "If I want to specifically cause two different
>>>> representations, of the
>>>>> same media type for the same resource, to be sent to A and B
>>>>> respectively, can I safely use multiple representation
>> headers that
>>>>> differ in their soap:roles to do this?  I would think so."
>>>> If both Representation header blocks are in scope how
>> could I target
>>>> them ?
>>> In that case surely you would just target rep1 at A and rep2 at B.
>>> What's the problem?
>> Two different representations of the same resource would have
>> the same URI. If a Representation header block is is scope
>> for URI resolution regardless of whether the node is playing
>> the role it is targeted at (e.g. if its role was 'none') then
>> both Representation headers would show up when you try to
>> resolve. Which do you pick, how do you target ?
>> Or are you suggesting that a Representation header block
>> targeted at 'none' is somehow different (wrt to processing
>> semantics) to a Representation header block targeted at some
>> other role the node isn't playing ?
>> Marc.
>> ---
>> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
>> Web Products, Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Web Products, Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.

Received on Monday, 1 March 2004 08:50:00 UTC

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