- From: Dan Diephouse <dan@envoisolutions.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:42:12 -0500
- To: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Yes but neither of them explicitly define the ReplyTo endpoint as far as I can see (and it seems like 1231 should). I found another person in the ws-addressing-test archives who notes the same thing: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-tests/2005Dec/0002.html Marc Hadley wrote: > This may be deliberate. The spec says that if the ReplyTo 'element is > NOT present then the value of the [address] property of the [reply > endpoint] EPR is "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous"'. > The two cases test explicit and implicit anonymous reply endpoints. > > Marc. > > On Dec 7, 2005, at 3:50 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote: > >> >> Tests 1230 and 1231 appear to be the exact same. >> >> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/testcases/#test1230 >> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/testcases/#test1231 >> >> For 1231 the text says "Two-way message exchange containing an Action >> and a ReplyTo of anonymous. All other fields are defaulted." - but in >> the linked to message there is no ReplyTo defined. I'm assuming this >> is the critical difference between the two tests cases and someone >> just left the ReplyTo out? >> >> Thanks, >> >> - Dan >> >> --Dan Diephouse >> Envoi Solutions LLC >> http://netzooid.com >> >> > > --- > Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> > Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems. > > -- Dan Diephouse Envoi Solutions LLC http://netzooid.com
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2005 13:41:33 UTC