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

+1, my texts often require editorial touches. 8-)
Jacek

On Mon, 2004-03-22 at 17:26, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> 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 11:41:30 UTC