[Standards] private storage revisited

Ian Paterson ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Mon Jul 9 12:19:31 UTC 2007


Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> We already have one such solution/hack in PEP: the +notify
> namespaces used in entity capabilities to signal that a subscriber wants
> to receive notifications related to a given namespace. Your suggestion
> of +whitelist (etc.) is in the same spirit, but +notify does not force
> semantic structure on NodeIds, which +{access_model} does (and the
> objections may arise because NodeIds are supposed to lack semantic
> structure).
>   
Yes, there is a significant difference between "+notify" (where the var attribute of the <feature/> element continues to specify only the functionality that the client supports), and "+{access_model}" (where the 'node' attribute of the <feature/> element no longer simply identifies a node, i.e. it is overloaded to also specify the configuration of the server).

That said, we still might want to consider defining a new notify='true' attribute for disco#info <feature/> elements. Disco is "Final", but this change would be 100% backwards compatible, and is therefore permitted. What do people think?

- Ian





More information about the Standards mailing list