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

Re: i0001: EPRs as identifiers - alternative proposal

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:40:49 -0500
To: tom@coastin.com
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-Id: <1102632048.3494.147.camel@nc6000.w3.org>


The reason is that Reference Properties are intended to be used to
address things that -- for all intents and purposes -- represent
different Web resources.  (I.e., they have different WSDL, metadata,
policy, etc.)  Reference Parameters *could* be used that way -- just as
cookies *could* be used that way -- but they are not *intended* to be
used that way, nor are they most often used that way.  

On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 21:16, Tom Rutt wrote:
> David Booth wrote:
> >The question is: What guidance are we giving to the world?
> >
> >As you point out, we cannot stop people from doing things in ways that
> >are anti-Web, nor should we.  For whatever reasons, sometimes someone
> >may *need* to address Web resources using something other than a URIs.
> >
> >But what *guidance* are we giving?  If Reference Properties are kept in
> >the spec, we would be *endorsing* a practice that is harmful to the Web
> >as a whole.
> >
> >On the other hand, if we drop Reference Properties, people who really
> >need to address Web resources using non-URIs could still (ab)use
> >Reference *Parameters* to accomplish the same result, just as they
> >sometimes use cookies to do so today.  
> >
> I do not understand why Reference Parameters would be acceptable but 
> Reference Properties are not?
> If either is present, they are used to identify the instance of what is 
> being communicated to?
> Tom Rutt
> Fujitsu
> >Thus, they would not be prevented
> >from doing what they may need to do, but they would be encouraged to do
> >things the Web way.


David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Received on Thursday, 9 December 2004 22:53:02 UTC

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