RE: Why is [destination] defined as an IRI?

Tony,

 

You are correct.

 

An EPR contains a lot more information than just the address of the receiver, which is what the [destination] is. An EPR may contain metadata, reference parameters, etc. When you see a [reply endpoint] or a [fault endpoint] you use the additional information in order to decide how to interact with the described endpoint. Furthermore, an EPR tells you, in the case of reference parameters, which headers you must include in your message if you are to interact with that endpoint. There is no need to include the metadata in your message; the endpoint already knows the metadata about itself.

 

The value of the [destination] is the value of an EPR's [Address].

 

Regards,

--
Savas Parastatidis
http://savas.parastatidis.name
  

________________________________

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rogers, Tony
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 6:27 AM
To: Andreas Bjärlestam (HF/EAB); public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: RE: Why is [destination] defined as an IRI?

 

Just testing my own understanding, but I think this is because [source endpoint], [reply endpoint], and [fault endpoint] each contain a destination IRI of their own.

 

The destination is not the same kind of thing as the other three.

 

Putting it another way, the [destination]'s EPR is the one containing all of these pieces.

 

Please, someone correct me if I've misunderstood.

 

Tony Rogers

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Andreas Bjärlestam (HF/EAB) 
	Sent: Thu 10-Mar-05 17:01 
	To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org 
	Cc: 
	Subject: Why is [destination] defined as an IRI?

	 

	Why is the [destination] defined as an IRI while the [source endpoint], [reply endpoint] and [fault endpoint] are defined as endpoint references? Why can they not be treated equally? Is there a fundamental difference?
	
	.Andreas