- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 06:56:17 -0800
- To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>, "Harris Reynolds" <hreynolds@webmethods.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
In general, +1. It seems to me that any rationale for moving part of WSA QNames to URIs would be to provide some kind of benefit. I'm not strongly against moving relationshipType to URIs, but I'd like a stronger reason than "because". Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Martin Gudgin > Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 7:57 PM > To: Rich Salz; Harris Reynolds > Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org > Subject: RE: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI > > > Given that we have deal with "QNames in Content" anyway, what's the > motivation for moving from QName to URI for the @RelationshipType? > > Gudge > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org > > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rich Salz > > Sent: 02 December 2004 19:49 > > To: Harris Reynolds > > Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org > > Subject: Re: i037: Replace QName's with anyURI > > > > > > I totally agree that we should not replace qname's with URI's > > when they > > come from the outside (e.g WSDL), but that we should use > > URI's for our own > > stuff. > > /r$ > > > > -- > > Rich Salz Chief Security Architect > > DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com > > XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html > > XML Security Overview > > http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 3 December 2004 14:56:24 UTC