W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > April 2005

RE: Language for Reference Parameters

From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:12:27 +0100
Message-ID: <37E80E80B681A24B8F768D607373CA8002048B35@largo.campus.ncl.ac.uk>
To: "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <humphrey@cs.virginia.edu>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, <wasson@virginia.edu>

Dear Paco,

Many thanks for the explanation! I personally agree with the opaque
semantics of EPRs. However, I would have expected that a normative
'SHOULD' could have been used as a guidance to the WS community without
preventing sub-communities from defining conventions which break the
opaqueness, in a similar way to how query strings in URIs are usually
(mis)used by clients. 

Having said that, I accept your view and current wording and will not
insist on this (especially given the more important issues which the
group has to address at this late stage).

Best regards,
Savas Parastatidis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 6:58 PM
> To: Savas Parastatidis
> Cc: humphrey@cs.virginia.edu; public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-
> addressing-request@w3.org; wasson@virginia.edu
> Subject: Re: Language for Reference Parameters
> The rationale behind those words is to protect client code from
> changes in EPRs introduced by the issuer. The idea is that client code
> more robust if it is built in such a way that it takes no dependency
> the
> specific values, schema or overall structure of the reference
> elements.
> On the other hand, there is no way (and probably no reason) to prevent
> specific communities from defining ad-hoc conventions about the
> information
> that these elements carry. This is very similar to the URI opaqueness
> property: an architectural principle that is often violated for
> (sometimes legitimate) reasons.
> Given that, I don't think anything like a MUST or a SHOULD is
> since it would just prevent the normal development of perfectly good
> scenarios and likely end up confusing everyone (the WG itself spent a
> of time debating the consequences of those words for example).
> Paco
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2005 19:13:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:09 UTC