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

Yes it does! The (agreed) resolution says: "Define a new role as above 
[plus other stuff]".

"Above" says: "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."

If point 1. was not to be taken into consideration, why would the agreed 
resolution say "as above"? My reading is that the scribe figured out it 
could save some typing, instead of reinserting (again) the whole 
proposal once more.

You seem to be thinking otherwise.

JJ.

Jacek Kopecky wrote:

> 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 10:58:17 UTC