- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 11:35:48 -0700
- To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
- Cc: "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "XMLP Dist App" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I think the place where we run into problems is where we have an ignored/unprocessed header block rather than an understood/processed header block. This makes it hard to associate header block processing with the forwarding behavior if forwarding is not desired. Henrik >I don't (yet?) see how changing the default is going to affect >negatively any application (a few role name redesigns may be >necessary, but I believe that's not many). > >With the changed default, if a module doesn't specify anything >about relaying, none is done on processed headers, unprocessed >headers would be passed along believing that other node acting >the same role would do better. > >On the other hand a module can include relaying in its >specification and it would work. My preference to push the >relaying specification into modules is based on my opinion >that relaying is tied to a header's semantics and therefore it >is not an undue burden on the module's designer.
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 14:36:19 UTC