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

Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to )

From: Mark Peel <mpeel@novell.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:08:28 -0700
Message-Id: <s225bad9.045@sinclair.provo.novell.com>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>


+1 to Dave's approach.  But as for quoting Ockham's Razor as written, I
feel we have enough cryptic language to deal with already...  Latinum
est; non potest legi.

Cheers,

Mark Peel
Web Services Infrastructure
Novell, Inc.


>>> David Hull <dmh@tibco.com> 03/02/05 9:43 AM >>>
I think we're on the same page semantically.  I believe the difference

is between saying

    * missing => anonymous => binding-specified

and

    * missing => binding specified

For me the latter wins. /Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter
necessitatem/.
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2005 20:09:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:04 GMT