- From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 08:24:04 +0100
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Alex Milowski wrote: > On 4/30/07, *Norman Walsh* <ndw@nwalsh.com <mailto:ndw@nwalsh.com>> wrote: > I propose that we move [p:http-request] to the "required" pile. > > + 1 to that!!! Are there any security considerations that we need to worry about? I don't really understand how p:http-request works (as in the 30th April draft). It doesn't seem to be a standard atomic step, since it has attributes that correspond to options. Shouldn't its signature be more like: <p:declare-step type="p:http-request"> <p:input port="request-entity" sequence="no"/> <p:output port="response-status" sequence="no" /> <p:output port="response-headers" sequence="no"/> <p:output port="response-entity" sequence="no" /> <p:option name="href" required="yes" /> <p:option name="method" required="no" value="GET" /> <p:option name="http-version" required="no" value="1.1" /> <p:param name="*" /> </p:declare-step> possibly without the http-version option, and with other options for important headers such as Content-Type. Jeni -- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 07:24:10 UTC