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

RE: Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues)

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 01:31:49 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633803E00B70@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Cc: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] 
> Sent: 06 November 2004 09:21
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: David Orchard; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues)
> >>
> >> Hmmm, I don't think this is an objective statement. What
> >> you're saying
> >> is that the vendors who have implemented products against a
> >> proprietary
> >> specification (as it was then) would suffer if this 
> changed. However,
> >> those vendors who haven't used WS-Addr, have implemented
> >> their own, or
> >> have used something like WS-MD, shouldn't be listened to? 
> I hope not.
> >> If it is the case, then come clean now. I, and I'm sure
> >> others, aren't
> >> in this to rubberstamp something.
> >
> > But you are in a working group whose starting point is 
> WS-Addressing,
> > just as the XMLP WG started with SOAP 1.1. If something in 
> > WS-Addressing
> > is broken, we should fix it. Otherwise, I'd rather move 
> forward given
> > our timetable.
> It depends on your definition of broken then. I and others would say 
> that wsa:Action is broken. I think your definition is: if it's a bug. 
> Is that correct? Now that wasn't in the charter, or did I miss it?

Obviously reasonable people can differ over whether something is broken
or not.

My feeling is that given that the charter doesn't say 'Start by taking
equal parts WS-A and WS-MD' that we *are* working on WS-A and that given
our schedule, fixing things that are broken rather than throwing open
the entire design space is the right way forward. 

I can understand that you feel differently.

Received on Saturday, 6 November 2004 09:32:22 UTC

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