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: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:04:58 -0500
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, "paul.downey@bt.com" <paul.downey@bt.com>, "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-id: <29D1C92E-5056-11D9-980A-000A95BC8D92@Sun.COM>

On Dec 16, 2004, at 9:09 PM, Rich Salz wrote:

>> 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.
> How about the empty element, <was:To/>?  It's a lot less confusing to 
> see
> a signed empty element then it is to recognize that an added element
> isn't covered by the appropriate signature.

Works for me.


Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Friday, 17 December 2004 18:05:05 UTC

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