- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 07:46:18 -0800
- To: "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Cc: "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>, "Jim Webber" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Vinoski, Stephen" <Steve.Vinoski@iona.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
I didn't propose a normative reference to WS-MEX, nor have I heard anybody else. I'm really not sure where you got the idea that a normative reference was being proposed. My words were "MAY provide support for something like WS-MEX" which is hardly a normative reference proposal. Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Marc Hadley > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 6:48 AM > To: David Orchard > Cc: Doug Davis; Jim Webber; Vinoski, Stephen; public-ws-addressing@w3.org > Subject: Re: WS-Addr issues > > > On Nov 3, 2004, at 5:10 PM, David Orchard wrote: > > > > I think I'm +1. The only niggling bit is on the "can be", that can > > mean > > a couple different things: > > > > A service provide that doesn't put the WSDL contract information in an > > EPR: > > 1) MUST provide support for something like WS-MEX > > 2) MAY provide support for something like WS-MEX. > > > What's the status of WS-MEX ? Is it the subject of a standardization > effort in a recognized standards body ? If not, then I'd be against > adding any normative reference to it at this point - we agreed to > remove the reference to WS-Policy for this reason already. > > Marc. > > > I'm +1 on the 2nd option and a big -1 on the first. We don't require > > HEAD on http: URIs. > > > > Dave > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org > > [mailto:public-ws-addressing- > >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jim Webber > >> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 1:52 PM > >> To: Vinoski, Stephen; Doug Davis > >> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org > >> Subject: RE: WS-Addr issues > >> > >> > >> Hey Steve, > >> > >>> While that's true, it doesn't help unless the contract > >>> address is associated with the EPR such that having the EPR > >>> can get you to the contract. > >> > >> Yes you're right - I'll be more explicit: I think it's OK to not have > >> WSDL contract information embedded in an EPR provided that the WSDL > >> contract can be obtained using the EPR (for example as part of a > >> WS-MetaDataExchange message exchange). > >> > >> Jim > >> -- > >> http://jim.webber.name > > > > > > > --- > Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> > Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems. >
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:47:12 UTC