Re: NEW ISSUE; wsa:To interaction with application protocols

On Dec 16, 2004, at 9:09 PM, Rich Salz wrote:

>> 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.
>
> How about the empty element, <was:To/>?  It's a lot less confusing to 
> see
> a signed empty element then it is to recognize that an added element
> isn't covered by the appropriate signature.

Works for me.

Marc.

---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.

Received on Friday, 17 December 2004 18:05:05 UTC