RE: Issue 107: Clarify the terms application, actor & related no tions of identity.

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
> 
>