RE: Issue #1 proposed resolution

Mark and Mark,
It looks like RefProps are gone as of yesterday: see
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i001 .

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Little
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 5:26 PM
> To: Mark Baker
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution
> 
> 
> 
> 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 01:33:16 UTC