- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:21:10 +0100
- 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 UTC