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

RE: Jury Instructions/ Preliminary Agenda for 2006-11-06 teleconference

From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 16:04:15 -0800
To: "'Bob Freund'" <bob@freunds.com>, "'[WS-A]'" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-ID: <008901c6fe12$70992930$3901a8c0@DELLICIOUS>
Very entertaining mail!

 

Makes me almost wish to be back on the jury, to string the specs up on the
first and third counts!  Or at least send them to a minimum security
facility for a hopefully short duration.

 

I don't believe the second charge would stand judicial scrutiny.  To me it
just says you can identify the use of the URI "http://www. ... anonymous"
using simple string compare.  It wasn't intended (and can only be inferred
to by squinting) to say that the anonymous _behavior_ is tied to this simple
string compare.

 

Jonathan Marsh -  <http://www.wso2.com> http://www.wso2.com -
<http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com> http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com

 

  _____  

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bob Freund
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 3:52 PM
To: [WS-A]
Subject: Jury Instructions/ Preliminary Agenda for 2006-11-06 teleconference

 

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury

All of the testimony has been given, and the evidence provided for your
inspection.  The time has come to conclude your deliberations.

 

You will be asked to decide the following questions with regard to the
charges raised against WS-Addressing:

 

First Charge:

One count of flirting with anonymous addresses of unknown character without
any intention of establishing a meaningful relationship.

 

Soap binding 5.2.1 invites other anonymous addresses.

 

"Note that other specifications MAY define special URIs that have other
behaviors (similar to the anonymous URI)." 

 

If the Jury finds that the WG didn't really mean it, then the spec shall be
found guilty of this charge.

If found guilty of this charge, then the WG shall issue an errata removing
the flirtatious prose and cr33 shall be closed with no action.

If found innocent, then the WG is sentenced to accommodate such anonymous
addresses without prejudice and to modify the WSDL binding and the policy
assertions accordingly. 

 

How do you find?

 

Second Charge:

Core and Soap binding are inconsistent: The core spec is section 3.2.1 says
that anonymous is a recognizable uri detectable with simple string
comparison for "http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous".  If the
Jury returns a guilty verdict to the first charge, then this charge is moot
once the sentence has been served.  If the Jury returns an innocent verdict
to the first charge, and a guilty verdict to the second charge, then the WG
shall be sentenced to decide how to remove this inconsistency.

 

How do you find?

 

Third charge:

One count of not being policy friendly

Content in the element is not well matched with the policy framework that is
forming into a specification.  

 

If found guilty, the mandatory sentence is that all markers are to be
meaningful by their name alone which touches the WSDL binding as well as the
policy assertion

 

How do you find?

 

Thanks

-bob

 
Received on Thursday, 2 November 2006 00:04:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:15 GMT