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

RE: i0001: EPRs as identifiers (why XML?)

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:23:10 -0800
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF0BD9436D@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

OK, let's stop the mischaracterization.  Use of ref
properties/parameters is *not* just an "implementation choice".  It is a
choice in the sense of there is a choice, but it is the offering of the
choice that we want.

If you want to go that way, I'll use the same argument against parts of
URIs.  Use of Path vs Frag-ids vs query params is implementation
dependent.  Let's pick one... I don't see the need for query parameters.
I'd like URIs to remove Query parameters because it's just an
implementation detail.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 12:21 PM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: David Orchard; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: i0001: EPRs as identifiers (why XML?)
> 
> On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 15:09, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> > To add to DaveO's response, remember the purpose of the sub-address.
> > It's used in conjunction with the address URI to enable the
> > infrastructure to deliver the message to its ultimate destination.
> 
> That's a particular implementation choice.  It doesn't make sense
> to design the spec around one particular imlementation model.
> 
> If the WG is contemplating such a fundamental departure from the
> Web architecture as using EPRs instead of URIs as Web resource
> identifiers, then there should be some very compelling
> implementation-independent use cases that clearly demonstrate
> the need.
> 
> > It's
> > designed to work with SOAP, which defines headers for the purpose of
> > delivering the message to the ultimate SOAP destination.
> 
> I guess this raises an important question: To what extent should
> Addressing be tied to SOAP?
> 
> > SOAP headers
> > are XML.  Thus it is quite natural for RefProps to be XML as well,
to
> > eliminate a translation or binding process from some other form
(plain
> > text?) to XML.  A model that wasn't SOAP-centric perhaps wouldn't
get as
> > much synergy from XML.
> 
> This is presupposing that RefProps are *necessary*.  Are they?  Please
> show the use cases that demonstrate this need.
> 
> Without realistic use cases that clearly demonstrate the need,
> RefProps look very much like an artifact of a particular
> implementation model.
> 
> --
> 
> David Booth
> W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Received on Friday, 19 November 2004 18:23:17 GMT

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