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

Re: Gudges's diagrams from today's F2F on EPR comparison

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 09:53:51 -0500
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <20041209145351.GN30371@markbaker.ca>

That's interesting, in particular the "Same identity" "answer" (at the
time the picture was taken, of course).

I think the spec is quite clear that the identifying information is
the URI and the RefProps.  Nothing else is claimed to be an identifier
AFAICT, nor does the spec seem to allow other specs to add other
identifying information ... though it doesn't rule it out either, of
course (but IMO that would be very bad practice, since I believe that
identifiers should be self-descriptive within a message).

So why isn't the answer to that "1,2,3"?  What's the reasoning behind
not immediately listing 1 as an answer?  And similarly, why is #4 being
considered at all?

I'm curious about this, because I want to make sure I'm arguing to
exclude the right things from the spec.  If other stuff might impact
what is identified, IMO it should be removed to.  So answer *very*
carefully.  P-) 8-)

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 9 December 2004 14:51:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:07 UTC