- From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:35:46 -0400
- To: "'christopher ferris'" <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
- Cc: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> What I suggested was that a careless handler could inadvertently > modify the dependsOn in a manner that actually changed what was > expected. > > e.g. > > Let's say that A does its thing and writes out a dependsOn in the > C header an empty list! That would be a bad thing. It would be a bug, if the dependsOn used to also include B... we can't prevent bugs in general. > I was also suggesting that it complicated the processing model > unnecessarily because the handler for A needs to modify the header > targetted at C. This means that it needs to scan all of the headers > looking for a dependsOn that includes the IDREF of the ID of the > just processed header block. Gotcha. Yes, you're right - see my last note to Rich. I'd just rather see the blocks somehow encapsulated instead of at the top level. But then again, we're not actually designing this, are we? :) --G
Received on Wednesday, 15 August 2001 16:36:26 UTC