- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 14:53:14 +0100
- To: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>
- CC: mnot@akamai.com, frystyk@microsoft.com, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
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. Mark, overloading means different things to different people. What do you mean by overloading here? (I'm not aware of overloading as a standard XML concept.) > 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. Jean-Jacques.
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2001 08:54:18 UTC