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

What about the following amendment to your point 1?

<amendment>
Define a new role (name to be decided) that causes any Representation 
header block targeted to it to always be reinserted, even if processed.
</amendment>

Jacek Kopecky wrote:

> Oh, I think your closing email [1] is a bit wrong and a bit confusing:
> 
> it says the five numbered points are characteristics of the new role,
> where only the second is, in fact. The first point isn't true (IIRC),
> the use of the new role is totally up to the application; a
> Representation header can be targeted at any other role and the usual
> rules apply, including the points 3a, 3b and 4 in the closing email.
> 
> I think the closing email should be rephrased to something like:
> 
> 
>         At its recent f2f, the XMLP WG decided to close this issue with
>         the following actions:
>         
>         1. define a new role (name to be decided) that causes all
>         Representation header blocks targeted to it always to be
>         reinserted, even if processed.
>         
>         2. Note that it's OK for multiple Representation header blocks
>         in the same message to have the same URI and role. Such
>         Representation header blocks would typically have different
>         metadata.
>         
>         3. Note that implementations MAY need to process Representation
>         header blocks BEFORE other header blocks that might dereference
>         URIs.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
>                    Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                    Systinet Corporation
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
> 
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Mar/0024.html
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 16:56, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 11:29:29 UTC