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

Re: NEW ISSUE

From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 16:12:06 +0000
Message-Id: <7056C85E-2F45-11D9-AE93-00039399DACE@arjuna.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
To: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>

I'd prefer to have this as a separate issue. If we decided to drop 
wsa:Action (which I doubt), then i017 is superfluous. If we decided to 
keep it in some form, then it's not.

Mark.

On 5 Nov 2004, at 13:31, Mark Nottingham wrote:

>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Can we consider this as part of i017, or is it really separate?
>
>> i017 Purpose of the Action property
>> Why is it neccessary to be able to specify a non-default Action? Why 
>> are non-unique Action headers allowed? What is the relationship 
>> between the  action value and the operation name?
>
> (Also, please include a description of the issue along with "NEW 
> ISSUE"; otherwise, we'll just have a monster "NEW ISSUE" thread. :)
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2004, at 3:41 AM, Mark Little wrote:
>
>> Not exactly sure of the wording you'd require, but here goes:
>>
>> I'd like to propose raising a new issue on the utility of wsa:Action 
>> and its presence in a specification about addressing.
>>
>> Mark.
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Mark Little,
>> Chief Architect,
>> Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
>>
>> www.arjuna.com
>>
>>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
> Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
>
>
Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 16:15:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:59 GMT