RE: Issue 140 bogus?

+1

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com [mailto:Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com]
> Sent: 10 October 2001 02:05
> To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> Cc: jacek@idoox.com; skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue 140 bogus?
> 
> 
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen writes:
> 
> >> I would prefer to be formal
> >> about saying *what* it means 
> >> to act in the role of the anonymous actor,
> >> rather than *how* that can be accomplished
> 
> The question, I think, is what can you say about the message path.  Is it 
> possible that it extends beyond the node assuming the anonymous role?  Is 
> it possible that a path like this would emerge:
> 
>         A -> B -> ANON -> C -> ANON -> D
> 
> SOAP 1.1 sure seems to rule that out. It says:
> 
> "Omitting the SOAP actor attribute indicates that the 
> recipient is the 
> ultimate destination of the SOAP message."
> 
> I think that pretty formally boils down to "the message path ends at the 
> node assuming the anonymous role.  There can be no node further along the 
> message path, and there can therefore be no more than one node assuming 
> the anonymous role."  I don't think that's unduly telling the node how to 
> do its job.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 
> 1-617-693-4036
> Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2001 05:40:19 UTC