- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:18:35 -0500
- To: Jim Webber <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 04:01:05AM -0000, Jim Webber wrote: > > Me, sneaky? 8-) > > Oh yeah. Sneaking in that "resource" word. That stuff's all happening > over at OASIS mate :-) I think the Web had dibs on the word long before WS-RF. 8-) > > That would be a significant restriction over what's permitted by the > > current definition, and would prevent a whole lot of Web-style > > interactions. -1 > > Resource is potentially overloaded in this context (unfortunately). > Obviously you know my MESTian viewpoint on this, and I your RESTafarian > viewpoint - can we compromise on some other noun? But it's not for me to decide! The definition the WG come up with already includes "resource". Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Thursday, 24 February 2005 04:19:11 UTC