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

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

> I still think it would be useful to give some guidance on what the 
> reinsertion rules are if you don't use the new role.  I read the original 
> proposed text as saying "reinsert if processed regardless of role" which 
> (a) isn't what I remembered us deciding and (b) seems to make the 
> introduction of the new role at best redundant.  

That is my recollecton too.

> I think I would consider 
> one of the following two rules for re-insertion after processing if the 
> role is not "sticky":  Either:
> 
> I.  Except in the specific case of role="sticky", this specification does 
> not mandate whether or a node processing a Representation header should or 
> should not reinsert a similar header targeted at the same role.  Other 
> specifications, such as the specifications for additional headers, MAY be 
> used in conjunction with specification to mandate either the reinsertion 
> or reliable removal of processed representation header.  Accordingly, 
> absent the use of such additional features, applications should not depend 
> on the presence of such reinserted representation headers.
> 
> -or-
> 
> II.  Except when role="sticky", processing of a Representation header MUST 
> NOT cause (I.e. does not implicitly cause) reinsertion of a similar 
> Representation header targeted to the same role.  Note, however, that the 
> action of other processed SOAP features MAY cause similar or identical 
> Representation headers to be (re)inserted. 
> 

I like option II, provides a much clearer direction.

> I think I can live with either of these, probably slight preference for I. 
> except that it might be viewed as too subtle and thus confusing.  I think 
> the behavior is similar in practice.   In other respects, I think I agree 
> with Jacek's formulation.  Thank you.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn 
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
> 03/22/2004 11:17 AM
> 
>  
>         To:     Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
>         cc:     Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, XMLP Dist App 
> <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>         Subject:        Re: Issue 455 closed: Representation header and SOAP    processing model
> 
> 
> Oh, I think your closing email [1] is a bit wrong and a bit confusing:
> 
> it says the five numbered points are characteristics of the new role,
> where only the second is, in fact. The first point isn't true (IIRC),
> the use of the new role is totally up to the application; a
> Representation header can be targeted at any other role and the usual
> rules apply, including the points 3a, 3b and 4 in the closing email.
> 
> I think the closing email should be rephrased to something like:
> 
> 
>         At its recent f2f, the XMLP WG decided to close this issue with
>         the following actions:
>  
>         1. define a new role (name to be decided) that causes all
>         Representation header blocks targeted to it always to be
>         reinserted, even if processed.
>  
>         2. Note that it's OK for multiple Representation header blocks
>         in the same message to have the same URI and role. Such
>         Representation header blocks would typically have different
>         metadata.
>  
>         3. Note that implementations MAY need to process Representation
>         header blocks BEFORE other header blocks that might dereference
>         URIs.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
>                    Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                    Systinet Corporation
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
> 
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Mar/0024.html
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 16:56, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> 
>>Yes it does! The (agreed) resolution says: "Define a new role as above 
>>[plus other stuff]".
>>
>>"Above" says: "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."
>>
>>If point 1. was not to be taken into consideration, why would the agreed 
> 
> 
>>resolution say "as above"? My reading is that the scribe figured out it 
>>could save some typing, instead of reinserting (again) the whole 
>>proposal once more.
>>
>>You seem to be thinking otherwise.
>>
>>JJ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2004 02:37:53 UTC