- From: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:54:42 -0500
- To: <mlong@phalanxsys.com>
- Cc: "'David Fallside'" <fallside@us.ibm.com>, "'Martin Gudgin'" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
> I assume that 'preserve' and 'reuse' are distinct, > i.e., that an intermediary is not required to 'reuse' > prefixes for inserted headers. I think Matt raises an interesting question. We have the model (which I've always thought was a bit too tricky, BTW), that processed headers are removed, but that possibly identical ones can be reinserted if the feature so directs. Fine, but this means that each feature should specify whether the reinserted headers must preserve prefices. I think interop would be improved if we could basically say. "Specifications for such features SHOULD, when practical, ensure that the infoset of the reinserted header conforms to the rules that would have applied if the header had not been processed." I'm sure there's a less lumpy way to say it, but I'm trying to give transparency to the next downstream node. If A sends to B sends to C, then C gets the same header regardless of whether B ignored or processed and reinserted. Possible spec clarification? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 19:57:53 UTC