Proposed Edits to "Framework" spec for header/body distinction.

I sent this out this morning, and it didn't get into the archive.  Perhaps
it was because of the three large file attachments.  This time, I'm trying
one zip file.

====Original note follows=======

The attached files fulfill the action item that I took at the ftf to
prepare proposed edits to cover the new decisions on header body
distinction.  I've supplied three forms: HTML with and without "diffs", and
the base MS word file on which I did the edits.  The presumption is that,
if any of these changes are adopted, the editors will cut/paste them into
the base specification documents.   It's for David to say, but I think
we'll be discussing this on the Wed call.  The changes are significant
enough that I suggest you take 15-20 minutes over the next couple of days
to review them.  The main changes are in chapter 2, and in chapter 4
(changes in chapter 4 are mainly to delete text that has been merged into
chapter 2.)  The "diffs" are not 100% reliable, but they should be a good
guide to where I made changes.

I suggest reading without the diffs first (or turn off change tracking in
Word), as they chop up the text.  If you're worried about how much I
changed, then go back to the diffs.

As agreed at the ftf, I've also made some proposals that go beyond the
basic header/body distinction, as all these edits are somewhat
interrelated.  The following notes explain what I've done (they're also in
the documents).

At the Burlington FTF I took an action item to draft the changes that would
reflect our agreements on Body processing.  In trying to do this, I've
realized that the changes hit several parts of the document, so I've
entered them as revisions to the editors copy of the Framework.

Notes by me are in this orange color (you won't see the orange if you're
looking at a copy with "diffs" - the diffs generally show as green).  The
actual proposed changes are marked with MS word change tracking?Word users
can see "the diffs" by turning on change highlighting.  I'll supply HTML
with and without diffs.

If you're reading the HTML versions, you'll notice that Word has done some
random paragraph formatting during the conversion.  The intention is that
the editors will copy and paste text from this draft into their base
version, and will update paragraph formatting as necessary.   You should be
able to make out what's going on.  I have no idea how this all looks in
Netscape, but I presume something more or less legible will show up.  If
not, let me know and I'll send PDF.

Some decisions I've made in doing this work:

* The primary purpose of this draft is to implement the action item
assigned to me at the FTF regarding header and body elements. The goal is
to make clear that body is not symmetric with header, and that the ultimate
receiver can use a variety of means to determine the structure and
processing rules for the body.

* As suggested by several WG members, the term "Body Block" is gone.  We
now have "Header Block" and "Body"

*At Mark Hadley's request, and approved at the ftf, I have done a bit of
the moving that we agreed from chapter 4 to 2.  The editors must still take
responsibility for ensuring that they are comfortable with these
suggestions, and if so, for carrying them forward to the WG as formal

I took the liberty of making some other changes that go a bit beyond my
mandate, but that seemed best done as part of the same editing pass.  All
of these therefore should be viewed as proposals from me?there is no
obligation on the part of the group to adopt them.  If the group disagrees,
I think it is clear how to revert back to the status quo in each case.
Some of these probably should have corresponding issues openned.  I've
marked them (issue?):

*(issue?) I've taken the liberty of putting in a placeholder that rules out
actor="" (null string).  We should really open an issue to resolve this.
The question is:  if we were to allow the null string, is that different
from a missing actor (the original spec described a missing actor as
referring to the  ultimate receiver, but said nothing about actors with a
null string.)

*(issue) I have taken the liberty of flagging a few areas where I noticed
other issues, some of which may or may not be recorded in the issues list.
For the most part, these are not intimately bound to my action item, and
can be ignored if the WG prefers.  That said, I would recommend that we
review the issues list and make sure that all of them are

*(issue) we've been vagure in our terminology and references to the schema
spec regarding our use of schema datatypes.  The schema spec distinguishes
value from lexical space, yet we do not clearly distinguish our use of the
two in, e,g. modelling the value of boolean attributes.

* I put in a third step in the processing model (it actually comes first),
to deal with the concern of Doug and others that we were unclear on whether
you can look at the message to determine what roles to play.  I know I
fought this change, and we decided to put it in the primer, but this is a
proposal to put it in this document after all.  It's a single bullet in
(what's now) chapter 2.6, and is easily deleted.  We should have a formal
poll to determine whether this proposal is indeed acceptable.

Hope this is helpful.

(See attached file:

Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Received on Monday, 3 December 2001 16:02:04 UTC