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

Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:28:28 -0500
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050117162828.GM26918@markbaker.ca>

Hey Hugo,

On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 11:14:02AM -0500, Hugo Haas wrote:
> > Your RefProp example in your initial post didn't use them as identifiers
> > though; it used them as RefParams in fact.  So I'll go out on a limb and
> > ask; would you be content with removing RefProps?  Alternately, would
> > you be content with saying that RefProps shouldn't be used for
> > identification?  (though I guess you'd then have to distinguish them
> > from RefParams, but perhaps you have some ideas about that).
> I think that your alternative only holds true if [reference
> properties] are not considered by the client side for metadata
> comparison purposes. If it were not the case, then [reference
> properties] would be identifying this metadata about the endpoint.
> If we agree on this, then I think that we are saying [reference
> properties]' use is essentially similar to [reference parameters]',
> and that they are basically the same. Are we?

That's how I see it, yes, but if there's some distinction between the
two that folks want to maintain, that's ok by me.  My only goal for this
issue is to ensure that the REST constraint of a single
resource-identifying data element is adopted.

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Monday, 17 January 2005 16:28:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:08 UTC