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

RE: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI

From: Harris Reynolds <hreynolds@webmethods.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 12:47:32 -0500
Message-ID: <5B10E50E14A4594EB1B5566B69AD940706B5C701@maileast>
To: 'Martin Gudgin' <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org

This is related, but slightly off topic.  Why do we need the relationship
type attribute in the first place?  What use case does it satisfy?


Harris Reynolds
webMethods, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Martin Gudgin
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 10:57 PM
To: Rich Salz; Harris Reynolds
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: RE: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI


Given that we have deal with "QNames in Content" anyway, what's the
motivation for moving from QName to URI for the @RelationshipType?

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rich Salz
> Sent: 02 December 2004 19:49
> To: Harris Reynolds
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI
> 
> 
> I totally agree that we should not replace qname's with URI's 
> when they
> come from the outside (e.g WSDL), but that we should use 
> URI's for our own
> stuff.
> 	/r$
> 
> -- 
> Rich Salz                  Chief Security Architect
> DataPower Technology       http://www.datapower.com
> XS40 XML Security Gateway  http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
> XML Security Overview      
> http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 6 December 2004 17:48:46 GMT

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