- From: Jim Webber <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 21:47:01 -0000
- To: "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Cc: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>, "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Paco: > Action is not part of the EPR; I guess you mean make it an > optional message header. Still, I guess your point is like > the one about recognizing that the <To> information may be > carried by the transport: you do agree it must be there but > you argue it may be found in many different places (body, > SOAPAction, etc...). I would still disagree, however: this > just makes everything much more complicated than is really needed. On the contrary it makes good sense to have addressing information like "to" in an addressing spec. It makes less sense to have "intent" or "dispatch" information in an addressing spec, and (controversy ahead) very little sense whatsoever to have "context" information in an addressing spec. So - in addition to seeing off wsa:action I would also like to see refprops/refparams removed. Certainly people will want to populate the header space with particular header blocks, but bodging this through an addressing mechanism seems a poor factoring. Jim -- http://jim.webber.name
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 21:48:04 UTC