- From: Harris Reynolds <hreynolds@webmethods.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 12:47:32 -0500
- To: 'Martin Gudgin' <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
This is related, but slightly off topic. Why do we need the relationship type attribute in the first place? What use case does it satisfy? Harris Reynolds webMethods, Inc. -----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 10:57 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 Monday, 6 December 2004 17:48:46 UTC