W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > February 2006

RE: CR20: proposal 4a (crisper version)

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:28:52 -0800
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E801988B96@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>, "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
AIUI the rationale for removing a default value for wsa:To is that in
more than half the cases (requests, especially over HTTP), the anonymous
value doesn't have much utility, as it's generally undefined or banned.

 

But in practice, no single default value has much utility as a default
in request messages.  But the default value of anon in HTTP responses
(and probably other protocol's responses) does clearly have utility.

 

To disallow a default in the request case seems entirely reasonable, but
throws out the baby with the bathwater by removing the default
generally, in particular from the case where it actually has utility.
On the other hand, the harm caused by having a default that can't be
used in some cases isn't any worse than the cure (not have a default at
all).

 

So, -1 to losing the default value of wsa:To.

 

________________________________

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Hull
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 7:05 AM
To: Anish Karmarkar
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: Re: CR20: proposal 4a (crisper version)

 

Anish Karmarkar wrote: 

[snip]
Alternately, if we don't want to change the cardinality of [destination]
property then I would suggest making the wsa:To infoset representation
REQUIRED. 

FWIW, that's choice 2 in "Choices for CR 20" [1]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Feb/0058.ht
ml
Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 19:34:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:11 GMT