RE: Manifest Element??

[Rik Drummond <rvd2@worldnet.att.net>]

the question is: which is the most KISS'able?  rik

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Joya [mailto:mike.joya@xmlglobal.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 3:51 PM
To: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: Re: Manifest Element??


  In answer to Robert Fox's post regarding the Manifest element, Doug
Bunting
writes, "It requires receivers to support both expressions of that
semantic."
He goes on to say that "some receivers could attempt to differentiate
leaving
out the Manifest element from an empty Manifest, thereby losing
interoperability with senders that use those two things interchangeably."

  The two different semantics are not in such conflict. Sure, there's a
difference between the absence of a Manifest element and an empty one. Take
the
"Table of Contents" approach (as expressed in my previous email.) The MSH is
really concerned with the inner Reference elements that correspond to the
MIME payload envelopes. The Manifest, empty or absent, does not affect how
many
References are available. A robust implementation should be tolerant of both
cases.

  Whether this is an ideal circumstance is open for debate. What purpose
requires a functional differentiation between an absent Manifest and an
empty
one? I cannot envision one.

  On a side note, I think the "POC request for fewer optional
elements" regarded the StatusData and ApplicationHeaders elements, but
that's a
separate discussion altogether.




--
// Michael Joya
// XML Global Research and Development
// 1818 Cornwall Ave. Suite 9
// Vancouver, Canada
// 604-717-1100x230




------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-transport-request@lists.ebxml.org