W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > December 2004

RE: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 11:57:58 -0800
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF0C27F996@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

There's been no proof that the problems that the TAG finding talks about
are relevant to WS-A.  I generally refuse to do things "because somebody
smart said so", and *especially* when the smart people didn't outlaw
QNames and noted many cases where they were useful.  I remember when I
mentioned to TimBL that OASIS WS-Security had moved to URIs from QNames,
and he sighed and said "there goes readability".


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Hugo Haas
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 11:35 AM
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI
> * David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> [2004-12-03 06:56-0800]
> > In general, +1.  It seems to me that any rationale for moving part
> > WSA QNames to URIs would be to provide some kind of benefit.  I'm
> > strongly against moving relationshipType to URIs, but I'd like a
> > stronger reason than "because".
> I think that the motivation is not just "because", but the TAG finding
> on QNames that I'm sure you're familiar with:
> | In so far as the identification mechanism of the Web is the URI and
> | QNames are not URIs, it is a mistake to use a QName for
> | when a URI would serve.
> As this is internal to Addressing, it seems like a simple and natural
> change to do.
> So I quite like Harris's proposal.
> Regards,
> Hugo
> --
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Friday, 3 December 2004 19:58:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:00 GMT