[public-ws-addressing] <none>

Sanjiva, I disagree. However, as you can see, the subject line is 
optional ;-)

Mark.

On 5 Nov 2004, at 16:09, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:

>
> To me, wsa:Action is like the Subject: header of email. Clearly
> the recipient can figure out the subject from the email most
> likely, but we all put subjects to help the receiver "dispatch."
> The subject tells the receive what the message is about and hence
> implies to him/her what to do with it. wsa:Action plays the same
> role IMO.
>
> Do people think RFC822 was wrong to define a subject header?
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
> To: <paul.downey@bt.com>
> Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:36 PM
> Subject: Re: WS-Addr issues
>
>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 10:54:28AM -0000, paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>> Certainly the utility company does not stick an action on the 
>>>> envelope
>>>> like"urn:pay:up:or:supply:will:be:cut" which is the function of
> was:action.
>>>
>>> my electricity bill is sent to "accounts department",  "Southern 
>>> Gas*,
> London"
>>> "accounts department" being the action in this case.
>>
>> Paul - why isn't the action "Southern Gas, accounts department" with 
>> the
>> address "London"?  Or "Southern Gas, accounts department, London" and
>> the address "U.K"?  Or "Joe-the-A/R-guy", "accounts department, ..."?
>> You get my drift, I hope.
>>
>> I suggest to you that what you described is the address, not an 
>> action.
>> The action, in the case of bill payment, is implicit and could be
>> described as perhaps "process this", "accept this", "DATA"[1],
>> "POST"[2][3], or any other generic/uniform semantic you might care to
>> name.
>>
>>  [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt
>>  [2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc977.txt
>>  [3] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616.txt
>>
>> Mark.
>> -- 
>> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
>
>

Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 16:17:53 UTC