- From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:21:15 -0500
- To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 15:09, Jonathan Marsh wrote: > To add to DaveO's response, remember the purpose of the sub-address. > It's used in conjunction with the address URI to enable the > infrastructure to deliver the message to its ultimate destination. That's a particular implementation choice. It doesn't make sense to design the spec around one particular imlementation model. If the WG is contemplating such a fundamental departure from the Web architecture as using EPRs instead of URIs as Web resource identifiers, then there should be some very compelling implementation-independent use cases that clearly demonstrate the need. > It's > designed to work with SOAP, which defines headers for the purpose of > delivering the message to the ultimate SOAP destination. I guess this raises an important question: To what extent should Addressing be tied to SOAP? > SOAP headers > are XML. Thus it is quite natural for RefProps to be XML as well, to > eliminate a translation or binding process from some other form (plain > text?) to XML. A model that wasn't SOAP-centric perhaps wouldn't get as > much synergy from XML. This is presupposing that RefProps are *necessary*. Are they? Please show the use cases that demonstrate this need. Without realistic use cases that clearly demonstrate the need, RefProps look very much like an artifact of a particular implementation model. -- David Booth W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2004 20:21:16 UTC