-----Original Message-----
From: Andre Beck [mailto:abeck(_at_)bell-labs(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 7:30 AM
To: Rahman, Rezaur
Cc: ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: IRML Question
Reza,
<rule processing-point=3>
<request.property name="C-Man"
matches="http://www.w3.org/1999/06/24-CCPPexchange"; >
<action>transformContent</action>
</property>
</rule>
Notice the "request" prefix before the property tag which
implies I am
referring to a header element in the request header which
will not be
available in the response header.
Is there a way to do that with current IRML spec?
Yes, even at processing points 2 and 3, you can match request
properties
in your rules. The provided property names may either be a
request or a
Thanks. That solves my problem.
response header.However, if the exact same header was present in both
the request and the response, you currently would have no means of
differentiating between these two in your rules. So maybe we
should add
a differentiator to the property element as you suggested in your
example above. Comments?
Yes, I think it will be helpful to define a way to provide differentiator to
the contents of a property element. This differentiator could be based on
XML namespace syntax. That enables the rules to be applied to properties
from various namespaces. I would suggest something like:
<rule processing-point=x>
<property>
<name requestns:C-Man=".." />
<action> ... </action>
</property>
</rule>
Where "requestns" namespace will define the "C-Man" attributes namespace.
The value of the attribute will be the attribute to match. This makes the
rules to be run on various implementations of the rule engine since the
namespace will uniquely identify the context it points to.
-Andre