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