- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 17:56:15 -0700
- To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>, "XMLP Dist App" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I'm glad we agree on the spirit of the table! The main purpose of generating it was to ensure that we did cover a useful set of cases. I also agree that it does not address the issue of whether flipping the default provides added benefits or not. I think that can be considered independently. If my analysis in [1] is correct then I think the "which default" question boils down to the issue of whether we want to enable optional header blocks to be deployed in a hop-by-hop manner. My preference is that we do, both because it seems like a useful thing and because it seems to introduce less changes to the spec. >I still am unconvinced by Henrik's use case for putting in a >header that >must be dropped by the next node (or next node with the chosen >role) if >not processed. Furthermore, I believe that if necessary that could be >implemented by an mU header addressed to the same role that >means "you may >not have to understand the other headers addressed to this >role, but you >do have to understand this one: it tells you to drop the >other headers if >you don't process." > >So, I still have some inclination to support those who would like to >change the default. It's always seemed too tricky to me to >have to rely >on dropping then reinserting in the case that you do process. In any >case, I think the spirit of the table below is correct: it >just doesn't >convince me that changing the default is a mistake. Henrik [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Oct/0067.html
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 20:56:46 UTC