W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > November 2001

RE: Issue 146

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 08:02:43 -0500
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF939D0356.FF074B0D-ON85256AFC.0045E0CC@raleigh.ibm.com >
Stuart,
 Yep, sorry, I misunderstood your note.  Related to the issue at hand,
I'm wondering how people view the following example:
  <env>
    <headers>
      <h1 MU="1"/>
      <h2 MU="1"/>
    </headers>
    <body.../>
  </env>

h1 and h2 don't have actor attributes.
As you said in your note, people are using the terms default actor,
anonymous actor and ultimate recipient interchangeably, so can h1
and h2 be processed by anyone other than the ultimate recipient?
I always thought so.  I interpreted it this way:
 - any node along the message path may process untargeted headers
   as long as they fully understand the semantics of the header
 - the ultimate recipient, however, MUST assume the role of
   default/anonymous actor.  Meaning that it MUST process h1 and h2
   if they are still in the message.
The main reason I see behind allowing other nodes to assume the role
of the anon actor is that a client knows nothing about the message
path - all it really knows is the one/next node it is supposed to
send it's message to.  So, there will be times when it does not know
what Nodes the message will pass through and as such can't control
which Node along the message path will process which part - so by
leaving the "actor" off (IMO) it is saying "I don't care which exact
Node processes this header, just as long as it does get processed
(hence the MU="1")."
So, while I agree that the ultimate recipient is also the default/anon
actor - I do not agree that a Node that acts as a default/anon
actor is also the ultimate recipient.
Am I alone in this interpretation?
-Dug
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 08:05:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:04 GMT