  RE: Issue 140 bogus?  From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com> Date:
Wed, 3 Oct 2001 22:44:51 -0400 To: "Williams, Stuart"
<skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com> Cc: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>,
"'Jacek Kopecky'" <jacek@idoox.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFBAB1B822.DC67DA75-ON85256ADA.0078CB5D@lotus.com>
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 act