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

Re: Issue 71: Additional actors

From: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 13:31:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200109061731.NAA13725@glad.research.att.com>
To: henrikn@microsoft.com, mnot@mnot.net
Cc: chris.ferris@east.sun.com, jones@research.att.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
   > Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 10:09:58 -0700
   > From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
   > To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
   > Cc: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>,
   >         Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
   > Subject: Re: Issue 71: Additional actors


   > My source for 'None' was the AM - what's the history of this there?

   > ...

   > -- 
   > Mark Nottingham
   > http://www.mnot.net/


The history of 'None' in the AM is simply that it was introduced (by
me) to exactly clarify the targeting issue.  The SOAP 1.1 practice,
which I think was semantically sloppy, had been to use the default
actor to represent both

  (1) cases in which the block was genuinely intended for the final
      recipient (which was just left unspecified for convenience), and

  (2) cases in which the block might be referenced by one or more
      intermediaries (by ID) [indeed such blocks may contain data that
      is mutually referenced by multiple other blocks, perhaps even
      from different modules for different purposes].

In the latter case, the use of the default actor was not an indication
of an intentional targeting at the final recipient, but a kind of hack
to ensure that it stayed in the payload for the various intermediaries
that might need it.  With the introduction of 'None', these cases can
be differentiated.  Case (1) uses the default actor; case (2) uses
'None'.

Mark Jones
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2001 13:31:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT