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

Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution

From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 01:26:05 -0000
Message-ID: <005301c4fe8f$02c4d910$abfd6043@exhp>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Mark, I have a distinct dislike for RefProps/RefParams, as you're aware.
However, putting my pragmatic hat on for a moment, I don't see them
vanishing in this release of the specification. That doesn't prevent us from
debating their utility (or lack thereof), but I suspect it would be better
to take it off this mailing list if we're to try to maintain the timeline
that was proposed by the submitters and agreed upon by the members of the
group. Who knows, there may be a change in a subsequent release?

Also, I'm not sure why you moved my text around, but it could change the
context of what was originally intended. I didn't mention the word
"identification" at all in the proposed text I said.

Mark.

----
Mark Little,
Chief Architect,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.

www.arjuna.com


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
To: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 12:26 AM
Subject: Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution


> Mark,
>
> 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.
> --
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
>
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2005 01:27:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:01 GMT