The resolution IIRC wasn't quite that. It wasn't 'always reinserted'. It was -- Define a new role (name to be decided) that causes a Representation header block targeted to it be reinserted if processed. (removed the always). It is always reinserted only if relay is also true. -Anish -- Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote: > > What about the following amendment to your point 1? > > <amendment> > Define a new role (name to be decided) that causes any Representation > header block targeted to it to always be reinserted, even if processed. > </amendment> > > Jacek Kopecky wrote: > >> 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 02:48:41 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:16 GMT