- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:52:58 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
- CC: frystyk@microsoft.com, "'Williams Stuart'" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'Mark Jones'" <jones@research.att.com>, "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Mark, Thanks for your answer. Mark Nottingham wrote: > To me, the namespace is a natural way to do this; it identifies the > Module (current definition) whose functionality is desired, and > installed handlers on the node will identify which functionalities > they implement, by the same namespace. I don't think this is unduly > overloading it; it's being used as an identifier for the semantics of > the tags it describes. I think I'd like to know what the XML Namespace people think of the issue. Anyone out there? > > > Using a separate identifier doesn't really add anything, unless it's > felt that there is an additional, orthoganal way needed to describe > the desired handler. It bloats the message, and increases the amount > of administrative details associated with messages (a namespace URI > and a module-functionality URI). Remember we are using XML, so we are not too concerned by the size of messages anyway! :) > Do we have any use cases (documented or not) where handlers (not > processors) need to be targetted in this manner? I'd be tempted to turn the question round: do we have any use case where processors (not handlers) should be targetted, considering that handlers will do the work anyway? (Am I answering a different question?) Cheers, Jean-Jacques.
Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2001 09:54:05 UTC