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

Re: Follow-up to Question on CR33

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:34:04 -0700
Message-ID: <450EE69C.2030708@oracle.com>
To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org

One of the main objections I've heard about the previous proposal that 
Doug sent out was the fact that what is 'addressable' or not, is not 
defined in a machine verifiable way and certainly not defined by WSA.

During the discussion within WSRM there was another solution that was 
proposed (I think by Gil) which I think would be more acceptable to the 
ornery (as characterized by Jonathan ;-) ) WSA WG.

Introduce a new attribute called wsaw:isAnon whose type is boolean. This 
attribute can occur on wsa:Address as follows:

   <wsa:Address wsaw:isAnon='true'>

The semantics of wsaw:Anonymous='required' would mean that either the 
ReplyTo/FaultTo wsa:Address is wsa 'none', wsa 'anon' or any other value 
if the wsaw:isAnon='true'.

This would allow the wsaw:Anonymous marker to be enforced unambiguously 
and without the requirement to understand some other specification that 
may define another "anonymous" URI.

WSRM (or any other spec) now can define their own "anonymous" URI, as 
they already have, but add the requirement that any use of that URI 
requires the wsaw:isAnon='true' to be present.

Received on Monday, 18 September 2006 18:36:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:14 UTC