I prefer the first, too, but should we drop the "/Node", and simply call it SOAP receiver, as a SOAP receiver is also a SOAP node. Thanks, Nilo > -----Original Message----- > From: Marc Hadley [mailto:marc.hadley@sun.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 7:46 AM > To: Williams, Stuart > Cc: 'Nilo Mitra (EMX)'; 'xml-dist-app@w3.org' > Subject: Re: Issue 107: Clarify the terms application, actor & related > no tions of identity. > > > Williams, Stuart wrote: > > Nilo, > > > > What you suggest is fine, although I think > > that one single-ended definition from the point of view of > either SOAP > > Receiver or a SOAP Sender would be better: > > > > ie. > > > > "At a SOAP Receiver the special URI > > "http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope/actor/next" > indicates that the > > SOAP Header block is targetted at the current SOAP Receiver/Node." > > > > OR > > > > "At a SOAP Sender the special URI > > "http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope/actor/next" > indicates that the > > SOAP Header block is targetted at the next SOAP > Receiver/Node along the > > SOAP Message Path". > > > > The first avoids the need to mention message path, while > the second is > > very close to Marc's original. Either would be ok... take your pick! > > > I prefer the former, it's clearer. > > Regards, > Marc. > > -- > Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> > Tel: +44 1252 423740 > Int: x23740 > >Received on Thursday, 9 August 2001 07:40:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:15 UTC