RE: Proposed resolution to issue 455

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Hadley [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: 26 February 2004 16:11
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: Jacek Kopecky; XMLP Dist App
> Subject: Re: Proposed resolution to issue 455
> 
> On Feb 26, 2004, at 10:52 AM, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> >>
> >> As I stated in the call, I think the use of the 'none' 
> role is wrong 
> >> in this case. Use of 'none' requires that intermediaries and the 
> >> ultimate recipient shouldn't process the header block directly (it 
> >> would be OK to process it if another header block targeted to the 
> >> node referred to the 'none' header block in some way). Having the 
> >> header block 'in scope' for URI resolution but not being 
> part of the 
> >> node processing of the message seems quite wrong to me.
> >
> > But surely such a URI would be refer "to the 'none' header block in 
> > some way"
> >
> I was thinking more along the lines of another header block 
> whose semantics specifically enable one or more 
> Representation headers. You could say that any header that 
> contains a URI that matches the URI of the Representation 
> header does that implicitly but the linkage seems rather 
> weak. This would also mean that you couldn't support the use 
> case in the issue:
> 
> > "If I want to specifically cause two different 
> representations, of the 
> > same media type for the same resource, to be sent to A and B 
> > respectively, can I safely use multiple representation headers that 
> > differ in their soap:roles to do this?  I would think so."
> 
> If both Representation header blocks are in scope how could I 
> target them ?

In that case surely you would just target rep1 at A and rep2 at B. 

What's the problem?

Gudge