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

RE: Issue 140 bogus?

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:21:10 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192680@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com'" <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Cc: "'Jacek Kopecky'" <jacek@idoox.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Noah,

I have no problem with the text you suggest.

I would note Jacek's earlier observation that information about actor is
distributed and repeated in Part 1, particularly sections 2.2 and 4.2.2. I
think that text you offer fits well with the style of section 2.2, whereas
the text I offered fits with the style of section 4.2.2 - the place I was
suggesting it be added was immediately after the discussion of "../none" and
"../next" in 4.2.2. I think your text would fit well after the 2nd or 3rd
paragraphs of 2.2.

Incidentally I was unable to find text intented to state that "anonymous
actor cannot further relay a message".

Also, use of the terms "default actor" and "anonymous actor" are used in
only very few occasions in the Part 1, I don't have strong preference for
either one, but I do think we should choose to use just one. I'd be happy to
leave that to the editors discretion.

Best regards

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com [mailto:Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com]
> Sent: 04 October 2001 03:45
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: David Fallside; 'Jacek Kopecky'; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue 140 bogus?
> 
> 
> Would it make sense to say, in the normative specification, something 
> along the lines of:
> 
> "Except for next, and none, etc. this specification does not prescribe the

> criteria by which a given node determines the (possible empty) set of 
> roles in which it acts on a given message.  For example, implementations 
> can base this determination on factors including, but not limited to: 
> hardcoded choices in the implementation, information provided by the 
> transport binding (e.g. the URI to which the message was physically 
> delivered), configuration information made by users during system 
> installation, etc. " 
> 
> We already have text, I believe (I'm on an airplane and can't easily 
> check) that makes clear that nodes acting as the anonymous actor cannot 
> further relay a message, and in that sense serve as an endpoint.  I would 
> fully expect that the request/response MEP, when specified, would indicate

> that responses typically originate from the node that acted in the 
> anonymous role for the request.
> 
> Sound about right?
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 
> 1-617-693-4036
> Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 05:23:07 GMT

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