Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution

Ugo, thanks for that. Now I know anything is possible :-)

RefParams next?

Mark.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
To: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>; "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 1:32 AM
Subject: 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 01:36:48 UTC