W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > June 2001

Re: Issue 25 Proposals from the f2f

From: Herve Ruellan <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:05:48 +0200
Message-ID: <3B25CD5C.D5472B18@crf.canon.fr>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org

I agree with you that we have to solve the problem of cross
references between blocks.

I had the feeling that the first proposal for handling headers aimed at
being simple and safe. This is why I suggested the first solution that
an intermediary MUST NOT change any trailer (an in any case MUST
forward them). 

I agree that this raises a problem when several parts of a message
refer to the same trailer and an intermediary really want to
change the thing refered by all those parts. But I think that the
other way around may also occur, when several parts of a message
refer to the same trailer and an intermediary want to change the thing
refered by one of those parts and don't know at all about the other


Jacek Kopecky wrote:
>  Herve,
>  I agree that "MUST by default" is somewhat suspicious, I'm not
> yet good enough in English to be able to state my point concisely
> and more clearly.
>  From your two choices I would choose the second but it doesn't
> say that if the intermediary doesn't know anything about the
> trailers, it MUST forward them. On the other hand I do want the
> intermediaries to be allowed to change/remove the trailers if
> they (think they) know what they are doing.
>  Adding a changed trailer doesn't let you change the data that
> other headers may point to, you can only change the data that the
> headers you put in point to.
>  We have yet to resolve pointing to various blocks of the message
> and it might be useful to separate this from the data encoding.
>                             Jacek Kopecky
>                                Idoox
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2001 04:07:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:36 UTC