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

Re: Issue 25 Proposal

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 17:27:32 +0200 (CEST)
To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
cc: <jones@research.att.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0106171721140.18680-100000@bimbo.in.idoox.com>
 Just to clarify my thinking:
 I really think that from the point of view of the Body - the
flesh of the message - all the data in headers are just
meta-data. Especially those data targeted at intermediaries.
 Yes, from the point of view of the intermediary a header will
have the data, but then this header can be viewed as a
sub-request of the whole request (or sub-message of the whole
message if you will) and the header data are the data for this
sub-request and all the rest of the message, including Body, is
meta-data to that sub-request.
 By data I mean information directly connected to the requested
action, by meta-data I mean information connected only
indirectly. This definition may vary and that may be the reason
why it might seem we disagree.

                            Jacek Kopecky


On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:

 > Jacek Kopecky wrote:
 > > [...] In SOAP you first have the natural distinction of metadata
 > > and data (headers and body), then you add [...]
 > This is were I think we disagree. IMHO, headers can carry carry data, not just
 > metadata. In fact, intermediaries require that you use headers for data, as
 > the body cannot be used to target data at a particular intermediary (remember
 > the body is being targeted at the ultimate recipient only).
 > > Let's keep SOAP simple - and that not in the mathematical sense
 > > of small and flexible, rather in the sense of easy to grasp and
 > > flexible.
 > Hum... are the two approaches really antinomial?
 > Jean-Jacques.
Received on Sunday, 17 June 2001 11:27:42 UTC

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