Forwarded message 1
Could a way forward be that "anonymous" headers MAY be processed by
intermediaries and not just by the ultimate receiver? Or is Doug's scenario
already supported by the "next" actor? (assuming the "next" actor forwards any
header it does not understand.)
BTW, maybe it is a good time to switch over to dist-app?
Jean-Jacques.
Doug Davis wrote:
> If so, then I apologize for not paying enough attention
> because I do not remember us ever saying that this
> scenario would no longer be supported by SOAP.
> I remember a discussion about ordering of headers
> when going thru intermediaries and href's between xml
> blocks, and such, but if this specific issue was discussed
> and disallowed then I think we made a mistake.
> -Dug
>
> Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com on 10/11/2001 03:11:59 PM
>
> To: Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> cc: jjmoreau@acm.org, mnot@akamai.com, w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Extra agenda item (short) for Oct 3 XMLP telcon -- issue 70
>
> Doug Davis writes:
>
> >> I believe this is a recent change and I
> >> also believe it is a bad change.
>
> This change was made in early June at the Rennes FTF, in conjunction with
> the rewrite of Chapter 2. I believe you were there, and every detail was
> carefully considered by the WG. We certainly worked through it
> sentence-by-sentence.
>
> >> There is an inconsistency in the
> >> current spec - section 2 says that
> >> actor is the only way, while
> >> section 4 says that it is just one way.
>
> My clear impression was that we knew at the time that chapter 4 and
> chapter 2 overlapped, and that we agreed to revise chapter 4 to match the
> rules agreed at Rennes, and to remove duplication.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------