- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:00:01 -0500
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, paul.downey@bt.com
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Issue 6 is more about optimizing serialization than transport/transfer protocol independence. Its basically asking whether we really need to include stuff like e.g.: <wsa:To>http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/role/anonymous</wsa:To> or <wsa:RelatesTo RelationshipType="http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/reply">http:// www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/id/unspecified</wsa:RelatesTo> Or whether it makes sense to say that omission of a <wsa:To> is equivalent to including one with the well know 'anonymous' URI as its value. The spec already allows omission of the RelationshipType attribute and says that there's a default value of 'http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/reply'. I'd like to extend this defaulting capability to other parts of the spec. I don't think Mark's issue is quite the same so I'd recommend opening a separate issue. Marc. On Dec 14, 2004, at 8:42 AM, paul.downey@bt.com wrote: > > if this is to be subsumed by i006 then the title should > be updated to "Transport Independence" or some such and/or > the description updated. All assuming MarcH as the issue's > owner is happy with this. > > Paul > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] > Sent: 13 December 2004 20:12 > To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C > Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org > Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE; wsa:To interaction with application protocols > > > Hey Paul. > > On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 07:43:38PM -0000, paul.downey@bt.com wrote: >> Hi Mark! >> >> i think this is closely related to issue 6 "Message Property >> Optionality": >> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i006 > > Good catch! > >> AIUI you'd like an addressing xxTo: value to map to an populate a >> transport >> xxTo: value, whereas Marc is suggesting that a missing addressing >> xxTo: >> could default to to a value derrived from the transport. > > s/transport/transfer/, but yah, exactly. > >> i guess both issues raise an issue with the way the spec is >> structured given >> that the SOAP and WSDL bindings are thus far "transport-neutral". > > Definitely. > > Mark. > -- > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca > > --- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2004 21:00:04 UTC