W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > November 2004

RE: i0001: EPRs as identifiers (why XML?)

From: <michael.eder@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:57:38 -0500
Message-ID: <E320A8529CF07E4C967ECC2F380B0CF901717968@bsebe001.americas.nokia.com>
To: <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>


We have implementations that align with the view that modeling sub- 
addresses using XML and SOAP headers makes the most sense. This 
SOAP-centric model for service endpoint descriptions appears to be
the best option available that achieves the necessary architectural layering.

Michael Eder
-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of ext Jonathan
Sent: November 21, 2004 10:08 AM
To: David Booth
Cc: David Orchard; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: RE: i0001: EPRs as identifiers (why XML?)

David Booth wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 15:09, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> > 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?

I think the Microsoft position on this should be clear by now (though
I'm sure others disagree).  WS-Addressing no more and no less than a
SOAP extension.  Removing features from Addressing because they don't
apply outside the SOAP world cripples the spec.  Features added solely
to support non-SOAP exchanges represent unnecessary complication.  We
need to abstract SOAP out just enough to accommodate the two versions of

To flip your question around, what are the use cases for addressing
(using more than just a URI) outside SOAP?
Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 14:58:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:28:21 UTC