- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 17:24:12 -0800
- To: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>
- Cc: frystyk@microsoft.com, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 07:39:03PM -0500, Mark Jones wrote: > > I spoke to Henrik today, and he thinks it is better to overload the > block tag. Some blocks would be purely declarative -- this is a vcard, > for example. Other (actionable) blocks would have more > processing-oriented tags that the processor would bind to a handler. > These tags would either surround a declarative block, or possibly > point to a declarative block, particularly if the block needed to be > processed in multiple ways. > > I'd be willing to go this route instead of "overloading the actor", > although I actually don't view it as overloading. My point was that > the actor would be a designation of the "the kind of processor > that should handle this block" by either having a binding/handler > in the processor's environment or not. Currently, the actor is somewhat > underutilized -- with only special URI's signifying the next processor > and the last processor. I agree. Hopefully, we'll (start to) address this in due time. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)
Received on Monday, 19 March 2001 20:24:18 UTC