[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: How could RDDL be distributed ?
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 04:01:11PM +0000, Miles Sabin wrote: > Michael Mealling wrote, > > Miles Sabin wrote, > > > To do the job you'd need some mechanism for ensuring that all > > > the DTDs were cached locally before pulling out the wire. > > > It'd be nice if that local caching mechanism got along well > > > with a mechanism for connected distribution and replication. > > > > That's one way but I don't think it solves the whole of the > > problem. Your still associated resources that are what I call > > authoritative. I think you want a solution that allows you to > > associate locally scoped resources as well. > > Actually I think it's simply two different problems which might > have related solutions, > > 1. Allow for local overriding of authoritative resources. IMHO that's the c15n problem space... > 2. Allow for distribution and replication of authoritative > resources. That's the URI Resolution problem space. The one part that isn't there is the actual distribution and replication part. Since I don't think we'd be doing really complicated stuff some of the existing rsync-ish solutions would work fine. The one piece that isn't there is an API for notifying the URI resoution services that a replication has occured. I think you'd also need some metering so that you can do some pro-active replication to hot spots but that also has some standard solutions. > (2) is the problem I'm worrying about ... my starting point > being a worry about the hosts for popular DTDs/Schemas becoming > a single point of failure. Same here. The CNRP stuff I published had to include a non-existent URI in the examples so that people wouldn't be using that URI due to lazy programmers. The URN/URI resolution stuff was built specifically for this purpose.... > Interestingly the two problems are dissimilar in a very > important way. (1) explictly wants to allow for substitution/ > overriding (that's it's whole point). (2), OTOH, almost certainly > wants to verifiably forbid substitution/overriding (or at least > make any such modification visible to ultimate recipients). That > seems to imply a need for signatures to be accomodated by any > such protocol. Exactly! The whole concept behind the c15n stuff was that this was URI Resolution that explicitly wasn't authoritative since it was being used to provide a view of the world that was client centric. The URi resolution stuff (and specifically RESCAP) does have the ability to sign various bits to ensure the authoritative chain of resolution.... -MM -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Mealling | Vote Libertarian! | www.rwhois.net/michael Sr. Research Engineer | www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett | ICQ#: 14198821 Network Solutions | www.lp.org | michaelm@n...
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|