- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 10:09:58 -0700
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>, Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
My source for 'None' was the AM - what's the history of this there? On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 10:07:00AM -0700, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > > I am not saying whether we can or not or whether this is a good idea or > not but rather trying to understand what the semantics are. The reason > why I might be confused is the examples in [1] where MarkJ says that > > "... you have a block that is referenced by some other > block. A module that employs such headers would generally be designed > to dispatch off of the 'thisDoesSomething' while simply referencing the > 'whatever' block. By targeting 'whatever' at an actor URI that is > guaranteed not to match, the module doesn't have to worry that the final > destination may happen to dispatch (possibly for some other purpose) on > a 'whatever' block." > > To me this does seem like replacing the existing semantics of a block in > order for it to behave in some other way than what it normally does. Is > this not the case? > > >It seems to me that this issue is not understanding, but > >acting. Mark is asking for a canonical actor URI that can be > >used to signify that "this block has no target actor" such > >that it can never be mistaken for a block which MUST be > >processed (such as in the case where the block is referenced > >by another block that may have a specific actor. > > Henrik > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0004.html -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2001 13:09:59 UTC