RE: ebXML header extension mechanism proposal

[Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com>]

I agree with David, the mustUnderstand semantics imply that an error
notification is delivered in the event a receiver cannot process a message
header with mustUnderstand=1. The sender knows when a receiving party
accepts a message with mustUnderstand=1 they support the processing of that
information.

I would agree that a header element with mayIgnore=0 is semantically
equivalent to mustUnderstand=1, however I believe the senders intent is more
evident with mustUnderstand=1. Additionally, mustUnderstand already exists
within other specifications and this alignment may be beneficial down the
road.

Now, if we were talking about using "cannotIgnore=1" or "mustProcess=1" then
that would indicate clear intent.  Only kidding...... these are not counter
proposals..

Dick Brooks
http://www.8760.com/