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

Re: NEW ISSUE; wsa:To interaction with application protocols

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:00:01 -0500
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, paul.downey@bt.com
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-id: <73FF9DAA-4FA5-11D9-B70D-000A95BC8D92@Sun.COM>

Issue 6 is more about optimizing serialization than transport/transfer  
protocol independence. Its basically asking whether we really need to  
include stuff like e.g.:

<wsa:To>http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/role/anonymous</wsa:To>
or
<wsa:RelatesTo  
RelationshipType="http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/reply">http:// 
www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/id/unspecified</wsa:RelatesTo>

Or whether it makes sense to say that omission of a <wsa:To> is  
equivalent to including one with the well know 'anonymous' URI as its  
value.

The spec already allows omission of the RelationshipType attribute and  
says that there's a default value of  
'http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/reply'. I'd like to extend this  
defaulting capability to other parts of the spec.

I don't think Mark's issue is quite the same so I'd recommend opening a  
separate issue.

Marc.

On Dec 14, 2004, at 8:42 AM, paul.downey@bt.com wrote:

>
> if this is to be subsumed by i006 then the title should
> be updated to "Transport Independence" or some such and/or
> the description updated. All assuming MarcH as the issue's
> owner is happy with this.
>
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: 13 December 2004 20:12
> To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE; wsa:To interaction with application protocols
>
>
> Hey Paul.
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 07:43:38PM -0000, paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
>> Hi Mark!
>>
>> i think this is closely related to issue 6 "Message Property  
>> Optionality":
>> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i006
>
> Good catch!
>
>> AIUI you'd like an addressing xxTo: value to map to an populate a  
>> transport
>> xxTo: value, whereas Marc is suggesting that a missing addressing  
>> xxTo:
>> could default to to a value derrived from the transport.
>
> s/transport/transfer/, but yah, exactly.
>
>> i guess both issues raise an issue with the way the spec is  
>> structured given
>> that the SOAP and WSDL bindings are thus far "transport-neutral".
>
> Definitely.
>
> Mark.
> -- 
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
>
>
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2004 21:00:04 GMT

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