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

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

From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:48:48 +0000
Message-Id: <0ECD28E9-2FD9-11D9-8D9C-00039399DACE@arjuna.com>
Cc: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>

>> 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.

Agreed and I hope we can all be reasonable about this. However, there 
have been a few occasions over the past few days that give me cause for 
concern, that I infer mean a rubberstamping exercise. Now maybe that's 
just confusion through the inherent limitations of email and if we were 
face-to-face things would be different. I'm prepared to give the 
benefit of the doubt.

> 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 haven't suggested throwing open the entire spec. And this does come 
back to definitions of broken. Let's just consider this one issue 
(mandatory wsa:Action) and not make it a rallying point for a 
discussion about whether or not this spec needs to be defined from 
ground up again (I don't want that and I don't think it should be 
anyway). I think a reasonable compromise in this specific case is to 
make wsa:Action optional. Anyway, it's hopefully going to be an issue 
we can vote on and then move on from there.

> I can understand that you feel differently.



Mark Little,
Chief Architect,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.

Received on Saturday, 6 November 2004 09:50:00 UTC

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