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 04:01:22 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633803E00B83@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Cc: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] 
> Sent: 06 November 2004 09:19
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: David Orchard; Francisco Curbera; 
> public-ws-addressing@w3.org; Marc Hadley
> Subject: Re: Mandator wsa:Action (was Re: WS-Addr issues)
> 
> >> I'm OK with a particular service requiring the presence of 
> an action.
> >> I'm not OK with requiring every message to carry one even when the
> >> service they are destined for doesn't use it. This is where
> >> we ended up
> >> in the XMLP WG and I think its a good compromise position.
> >
> > If a service doesn't require wsa:Action, then perhaps it 
> shouldn't be
> > usign WS-Addressing?
> 
> Not a very good approach to addressing issues in general 
> though, is it? 

I'm not so sure. For example, has the world really been well served by
where XSD ended up? Or would we have been better off having three
separate specs, one for each broad group that made up the Schema WG?
Obviously there is utility in standardizing certain things. And just as
obviously, not everyone will want to use a particular spec. I think
that's actually OK.

Gudge
Received on Saturday, 6 November 2004 12:01:56 GMT

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