On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 11:28:50AM -0500, Christopher B Ferris wrote: > > Dims, > > Why? There is no utility in making such a distinction from the perspective > of a received message, they are > simply SOAP header blocks that are processed in the usual manner using the > SOAP processing model. Has the WG decided what the identifier is yet? Because if it has, I maintain that it's maximally self-descriptive for the identifier to be able to be located within the message which provides increased visibility for (generally) very little cost. Some might recall the issue with HTTP 1.0 allowing partial URIs in the request line, and the ensuing problems for supporting virtual hosting. This necessitated the introduction of the Host header in HTTP 1.1 which restored the lost identifying information. If the URI + RefProps is the identifier, then the RefProps need to be declared as such. If it's just the URI, then all is good; wsa:To suffices. If it's the whole EPR, then you need a way to distinguish RefProps & RefParams from each other, as well as other SOAP headers. Self-description means never having to say you're sorry. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.caReceived on Wednesday, 24 November 2004 14:46:14 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:59 GMT