- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:51:00 -0000
- To: "'ohurley@iona.com'" <ohurley@iona.com>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Oisin, I think the easy fix is to add the word 'content' to the end of DR604. Which becomes: "...This requirement implies it must be possible apply many transport or application protocol bindings to the XP message without information loss from the message (content). " In terms of what intermediaries can touch and what transformations they can perform on the semantics of an interaction... its not clear to me that we have established any stated requirements - eg. do say request/response interactions fully nest through a bunch of intermediaries or is it a hop-by-hop chain of request/response pairs; what can an intermediary that signs a message touch... but thats for a different section... Regards Stuart > -----Original Message----- > From: Oisín Hurley [mailto:ohurley@iona.com] > Sent: 14 November 2000 17:15 > To: Williams, Stuart; xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: RE: DR604 > > > Hi Stuart > > > The semantics of an interaction are also bound up in the > events that arise > > during the course of an interaction, not just the content > of the messages > > exchanged. > > Indeed, this is true. However I think it may be fair to say > that there is > an 'expected interaction semantics' which is present prior to > the actual > message interchange and that this is what is meant by this > requirement. > > Coupled with the requirement for extension, it may be possible for > intermediaries to change then course of the envelope and thus depart > from the expected interaction semantics. The provision of routing > instruction makes this a viable means to tailor the exchange to your > particular requirement or to resolve damage or queue issues. > > > Delivery sequence may have semantics, single delivery may be > > important, silent loss may be an issue, loss of a 'fault' > > response may be an > > issue. I'd like to fully understand what is scoped as > "information loss". > > Hmm. We all know that information cannot be destroyed, merely > transformed :) > I think what this means is that the information in the basic > message model > (i.e. body of the message, all mandatory headers and > attachments) must reach > the intended destination intact. The rule is that > intermediaries in the > chain > of delivery must not remove or mutate these data items. > > cheers > --oh > > -- > ohurley at iona dot com > +353 1 637 2639 >
Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2000 12:54:27 UTC