- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 09:48:24 -0500
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>, Jim Webber <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Vinoski, Stephen" <Steve.Vinoski@iona.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
On Nov 3, 2004, at 5:10 PM, David Orchard wrote: > > I think I'm +1. The only niggling bit is on the "can be", that can > mean > a couple different things: > > A service provide that doesn't put the WSDL contract information in an > EPR: > 1) MUST provide support for something like WS-MEX > 2) MAY provide support for something like WS-MEX. > What's the status of WS-MEX ? Is it the subject of a standardization effort in a recognized standards body ? If not, then I'd be against adding any normative reference to it at this point - we agreed to remove the reference to WS-Policy for this reason already. Marc. > I'm +1 on the 2nd option and a big -1 on the first. We don't require > HEAD on http: URIs. > > Dave > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-ws-addressing- >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jim Webber >> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 1:52 PM >> To: Vinoski, Stephen; Doug Davis >> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org >> Subject: RE: WS-Addr issues >> >> >> Hey Steve, >> >>> While that's true, it doesn't help unless the contract >>> address is associated with the EPR such that having the EPR >>> can get you to the contract. >> >> Yes you're right - I'll be more explicit: I think it's OK to not have >> WSDL contract information embedded in an EPR provided that the WSDL >> contract can be obtained using the EPR (for example as part of a >> WS-MetaDataExchange message exchange). >> >> Jim >> -- >> http://jim.webber.name > > > --- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 14:48:26 UTC