- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:09:53 -0000
- To: "'Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com'" <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Cc: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, XML Protocol Comments <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
> From: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com [mailto:Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com] > Sent: 07 February 2001 20:14 > To: Mark Nottingham > Cc: Martin Gudgin; XML Protocol Comments > Subject: Re: INT: Re: Intermediary Discussion > > > Mark Nottingham writes: > > >> However, the design shouldn't address this in the 'core' > >> intermediary definition - it's too dependent on the > >> transport binding and influenced by the application. > > Many applications will want to approach XP in a binding-independent > manner. I think it is therefore important to have a clean set of rules > for the proper use and implications of headers/intermediaries, independent > of the binding. Indeed, the role of the binding should be to provide > implementation of those semantics. Strongly agree! > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Noah Mendelsohn Voice: > 1-617-693-4036 > Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 > One Rogers Street > Cambridge, MA 02142 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Regards, Stuart
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 17:10:09 UTC