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

Re: Issue 455 closed: Representation header and SOAP processing model

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:26:31 +0100
Message-ID: <405F05A7.9040604@crf.canon.fr>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Cc: Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Jacek, I think you may have missed an important expression in the 
resolution, "as above". To me, this was a reference to the initial 
proposal ("proposal again"), and meant that rule *2 was accepted. In any 
case, I don't see any trace in the log that indicates that it was 
abandonned.

I tried to be quite carefull when sending the closing email, following 
the log quite precisely. But I may have missed anything obvious.

What do you think?

JJ.

Jacek Kopecky wrote:

> Oh, in my recollection the rule *2. below was discussed as one of the
> approaches and dismissed in favor of the sticky role. Therefore the
> closing email [1] seems to be wrong.
> 
> The IRC log seems to support me in this (I don't think I'm posting any
> member-confidential info here):
> 
> 
> 08:38:59 <scribe> Proposal (again): Define a new role. Characteristics
> of this role are; 1. if you process a Rep header targetted at this role,
> you MUST resinsert it.
> ..
> 08:42:55 <scribe> Noah: We should say that it's OK for two
> Representation headers in a message to have the same URI and role
> 08:43:34 <scribe> Noah: I'd rather add a note saying that such headers
> would typically have different media types
> 08:43:50 <scribe> s/media types/metadata
> 08:44:34 <noah> s/metadata/metadata such as media type/ :-)
> ..
> 08:50:54 <scribe> Proposal for resolving 455: Define a new role as
> above. Add the two statements above concerning two representation
> headers and the note about metadata. Add text stating that
> implementations might need to process Rep headers before other headers
> that might deref URIs
> 08:51:59 <scribe> Issue resolved with above resolution without objection
> 
> 
> Jacek
> 
> On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 17:39, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
>>Jackek Kopecky writes:
>>
>>
>>>it seems to me that what you are describing is the
>>>default behavior - Representation header is removed by
>>>any node that processes it, except when the node knows
>>>better, e.g. by following the rules of our sticky role.
>>
>>Were that true we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Jean-Jacques 
>>proposal says [1] 
>>
>>* 2. The Representation header block MUST always be reinserted, even if 
>>processed.
>>
>>Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this seems to eliminate all latitude, and 
>>perhaps make the sticky role somewhat redundant.  This discussion is 
>>starting to feel a bit strange, which is often a signal that I am 
>>confused.  If so, my apologies for leading us astray.
>>
>>Noah
>>
>>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Mar/0024.html
>>
>>--------------------------------------
>>Noah Mendelsohn 
>>IBM Corporation
>>One Rogers Street
>>Cambridge, MA 02142
>>1-617-693-4036
>>--------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 10:27:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:16 GMT