- From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 12:57:35 -0400
- To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Jean-Jaques Moreau writes: >> You probably mean a body block, since untargeted >> header blocks cannot be processed unless referenced >> by some other targeted block. Does the specification say that? As I've said before, my understanding is that except in the case of RPC, BODY is carefully defined as a synonym for untargeted header, except that BODY is required. I will say that I find this partial symmetry disturbing, but there it is. I would probably prefer to have them either completely symmetric (BODY not required) or to really call out why BODY is different, whether anything special is said about order of processing wrt/ other untargeted headers, etc. Anyway, if they are the same thing as the current spec. says, then they can be processed under the same circumstances. In particular, I don't see anything that prevents processing such a header after the body, and certainly nothing that prevents processing it just because it is unreferenced. Did I miss something?. Indeed, this is one of the reasons I stated on the call yesterday (and I understand you missed the call) that I think we need to carefully straighten out at least the implications of <body > and untargeted <header>, and also I think the whole notion of path and routing, before we can really get mustUnderstand right. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 3 May 2001 13:01:07 UTC