Andre -- This looks quite clean and flexible. Great!
Lily
-----Original Message-----
From: Andre Beck [mailto:abeck(_at_)bell-labs(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 2:14 PM
To: Markus Hofmann
Cc: Yang, Lily L; Maciocco, Christian; ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: some suggestions for IRML
1) I would like to see more straightforward support of
"for-all" rules --
i.e., rules that trigger an action without any explicit
property matching.
That's a good point. I agree that while it's possible to
achieve this
with the current spec as well, a cleaner way to do it is preferable.
We need to think a little bit about how to do tis best. Not sure
whether we could simple make the "property" element optional.
Otherwise, we could introduce a special property tag indication the
"for-all" rule, something like "ANY" or so...
We could make the property element optional for services that
should be
executed for all requests, but leave the action element
inside property
elements for all other cases:
<rule processing-point=4>
<action>proxylet://userprofile</action>
<property name="content-type" matches="text/">
<action>icap://translate?lang=en</action>
<property name="user-agent" matches="palm">
<action>icap://transcode</action>
</property>
</property>
</rule>
The corresponding part of the IRML DTD would then look like this:
<ELEMENT rule (property | action)+>
<ELEMENT property (property | action)+>
<ELEMENT action (#PCDATA)
-Andre