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

Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:26:31 -0500
To: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050120002631.GK1111@markbaker.ca>


On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 10:41:53PM -0000, Mark Little wrote:
> I think the pragmatic view on RefProps/RefParams has to be that they will
> stay (rightly or wrongly, there are implementations and specifications out
> there that now rely on them).

This is a new spec we're working on, no?  Those implementations can
continue to depend upon whatever version of the spec they currently
depend upon.  Nothing we do here can break them, AFAICT.

> I agree that the term "identifier" can be
> contentious. However, so can the term "state". How about just calling
> it/them "additional information that referencing specifications [aka using
> specifications] or implementations need in order to ultimately address the
> endpoint service"?

>From my POV, there appears to be agreement to removing the part of the
spec that talks about using RefProps for identification.  Adding "in
order to ultimately address" back in would be akin to undoing that
change.  The point of the change, as I see it, is to get identifying
information out of the RefPs, and into the URI, and I consider that an
enormous improvement over the WS-A submission.

> That way we're not saying *what* goes in there, only
> *why*.

IMO, identification is a "what".

Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2005 00:26:36 UTC

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