- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:15:34 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Cc: XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 02:31, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2004, at 5:53 AM, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> >
> > I think you're arguing below that Representation header needs to be
> > able
> > to carry all the additional headers (apart from media type). My
> > proposal
> > shows how such functionality can be layered on top of the simple
> > Representation header (by extension) and if the group agrees, we shall
> > produce such an extension.
>
> I'm not sure why it's necessary to separate it into an extension, but I
> think we're in the ballpark.
Because it makes it formally possible to produce an implementation that
doesn't send the headers and ignores them when they arrive. A simple
implementation. In order to allow this without the headers being an
extension (i.e. optional) we would have to specify levels of compliance
or we would have to use SHOULDs and MAYs etc. the right way.
Extensibility is a simpler way to achieve the same result.
Jacek Kopecky
Systinet Corporation
http://www.systinet.com/
Received on Tuesday, 20 January 2004 04:15:38 UTC