Re: Issue 455 closed: Representation header and SOAP processing model

Jean-Jacques,

the resolution doesn't seem to carry the information that the Rep header
must be targeted at the new role in order for reinsertion to be
mandatory.

Jacek

On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 16:41, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> Now I am getting really confused!
> 
> I agree with your 3 points. Point 1), i.e. first snippet says (amongst 
> other things):
> 
> <logQuote>
> if you process a Rep header targetted at this role, you MUST resinsert it.
> </logQuote>
> 
> which I converted into:
> 
> <resolutionQuote>
> The Representation header block MUST always be reinserted, even if
> processed.
> </resolutionQuote>
> 
> How is this different? What am I missing?
> 
> JJ.
> 
> Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> 
> > Jean-Jacques, 
> > 
> > I read the log as:
> > 
> > 1) we decide what the new role will look like (first snippet)
> > 2) we add clarifications about multiple Representation headers (second
> > snippet) 
> > 3) we resolve issue 455 by defining the role (as above in 1), adding the
> > two statements (in 2) and a further statement on ordering.
> > 
> > That's the full resolution. The rule about mandatory reinsertion of
> > Representation was discussed before but dismissed in favor of the new
> > role.
> > 
> > 's how I see it. 8-)
> > 
> >                    Jacek Kopecky
> > 
> >                    Systinet Corporation
> >                    http://www.systinet.com/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 16:26, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> > 
> >>Jacek, I think you may have missed an important expression in the 
> >>resolution, "as above". To me, this was a reference to the initial 
> >>proposal ("proposal again"), and meant that rule *2 was accepted. In any 
> >>case, I don't see any trace in the log that indicates that it was 
> >>abandonned.
> >>
> >>I tried to be quite carefull when sending the closing email, following 
> >>the log quite precisely. But I may have missed anything obvious.
> >>
> >>What do you think?
> >>
> >>JJ.
> >>
> >>Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Oh, in my recollection the rule *2. below was discussed as one of the
> >>>approaches and dismissed in favor of the sticky role. Therefore the
> >>>closing email [1] seems to be wrong.
> >>>
> >>>The IRC log seems to support me in this (I don't think I'm posting any
> >>>member-confidential info here):
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>08:38:59 <scribe> Proposal (again): Define a new role. Characteristics
> >>>of this role are; 1. if you process a Rep header targetted at this role,
> >>>you MUST resinsert it.
> >>>..
> >>>08:42:55 <scribe> Noah: We should say that it's OK for two
> >>>Representation headers in a message to have the same URI and role
> >>>08:43:34 <scribe> Noah: I'd rather add a note saying that such headers
> >>>would typically have different media types
> >>>08:43:50 <scribe> s/media types/metadata
> >>>08:44:34 <noah> s/metadata/metadata such as media type/ :-)
> >>>..
> >>>08:50:54 <scribe> Proposal for resolving 455: Define a new role as
> >>>above. Add the two statements above concerning two representation
> >>>headers and the note about metadata. Add text stating that
> >>>implementations might need to process Rep headers before other headers
> >>>that might deref URIs
> >>>08:51:59 <scribe> Issue resolved with above resolution without objection
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Jacek
> >>>
> >>>On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 17:39, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Jackek Kopecky writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>it seems to me that what you are describing is the
> >>>>>default behavior - Representation header is removed by
> >>>>>any node that processes it, except when the node knows
> >>>>>better, e.g. by following the rules of our sticky role.
> >>>>
> >>>>Were that true we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Jean-Jacques 
> >>>>proposal says [1] 
> >>>>
> >>>>* 2. The Representation header block MUST always be reinserted, even if 
> >>>>processed.
> >>>>
> >>>>Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this seems to eliminate all latitude, and 
> >>>>perhaps make the sticky role somewhat redundant.  This discussion is 
> >>>>starting to feel a bit strange, which is often a signal that I am 
> >>>>confused.  If so, my apologies for leading us astray.
> >>>>
> >>>>Noah
> >>>>
> >>>>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Mar/0024.html
> >>>>
> >>>>--------------------------------------
> >>>>Noah Mendelsohn 
> >>>>IBM Corporation
> >>>>One Rogers Street
> >>>>Cambridge, MA 02142
> >>>>1-617-693-4036
> >>>>--------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >

Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 10:51:34 UTC