- From: Oisín Hurley <ohurley@iona.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 12:04:23 -0000
- To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>Allowing optional expression of destination URI sounds like a good idea. In fact, I think mandatory expression of the destination URI is even better. There has been some conversation about the need to identify the service instance endpoint in a separate manner to the protocol instance endpoint. That is, to identify the XP processor for whom the message is intended. >Does expression of the destination URI need to be in the base protocol or is >it sufficient if the base protocol has sufficient extensibility mechanisms >so that destination URI (and other routing information?) can be added? Definitely in the base protocol model I would think. >I tend to think of this and similar questions as though we are asking of XML >whether the XML 1.0 specification needed to define a "person" element, a >"title" element, etc. or whether it is sufficient to do as XML 1.0 did and >provide only the extensibility mechanism. XML 1.0 plus namespaces certainly >did define a few things, for example the "xmlns" attribute and namespace. >Is routing information more like "xmlns" or more like "title"? A namespace can give you an idea of the service 'type' that you want to address, but there is more info necessary to point to a service 'instance'. --oh -- ohurley at iona dot com +353 1 637 2639
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2000 07:04:27 UTC