- From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 17:13:11 +0000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Mark, I already said I would do that. I thought you were asking a follow-on question about whether that was really necessary. Mark. On 5 Nov 2004, at 16:34, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > I don't see enough information yet to justify a separate issue; both > question the purpose and utility of the Action property. If you'd like > to raise a new issue, please provide more information, and > differentiate it from this one. > > Thanks, > > On Nov 5, 2004, at 11:12 AM, Mark Little wrote: > >> I'd prefer to have this as a separate issue. If we decided to drop >> wsa:Action (which I doubt), then i017 is superfluous. If we decided >> to keep it in some form, then it's not. >> >> Mark. >> >> On 5 Nov 2004, at 13:31, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Mark, >>> >>> Can we consider this as part of i017, or is it really separate? >>> >>>> i017 Purpose of the Action property >>>> Why is it neccessary to be able to specify a non-default Action? >>>> Why are non-unique Action headers allowed? What is the relationship >>>> between the action value and the operation name? >>> >>> (Also, please include a description of the issue along with "NEW >>> ISSUE"; otherwise, we'll just have a monster "NEW ISSUE" thread. :) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> >>> On Nov 5, 2004, at 3:41 AM, Mark Little wrote: >>> >>>> Not exactly sure of the wording you'd require, but here goes: >>>> >>>> I'd like to propose raising a new issue on the utility of >>>> wsa:Action and its presence in a specification about addressing. >>>> >>>> Mark. >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> Mark Little, >>>> Chief Architect, >>>> Arjuna Technologies Ltd. >>>> >>>> www.arjuna.com >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist >>> Office of the CTO BEA Systems >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist > Office of the CTO BEA Systems > >
Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 17:14:44 UTC