- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 10:48:31 -0400
- To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>, Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, W3C Archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Jean Jacques Moreau writes; >> I like the spirit, but wouldn't an implication >>be that intermediairies can no longer remove >> headers targeted to them, when they contain >> PIs? Isn't this in contradiction with the >> processing model? Thanks, looks like we're closing in on a resolution. I don't think there's a problem with the processing model. We clearly say you SHOULD fault if you receive a PI. The reason for the lattitude is essentially that you're relaying a header of no concern to you and not looking at it closely. I agree we need to be careful with the case where it was addressed to you, and we have to document the rules for that very clearly. Actually, I think the ambiguity is only in the case where you chose to "reinsert" a header, as it's in the case of relayed content that we've given lattitude. I think that in all other cases, including just removing a header, we've said "SHOULD fault", end of story. In the case of a re-inserted header, what about (at or near the sentence on re-inserting indistinguishable headers) "intermediaries SHOULD NOT reinsert headers that contained processing instructions but SHOULD instead, as described above(below), fault with a sender fault." In other words, you MUST not insert new headers with PIs, you SHOULD NOT reinsert headers that were received with PIs, (and as we've more or less agreed) you SHOULD fault if you receive a message with a PI. How's that? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 10:50:18 UTC