- From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:20:03 -0800
- To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Cc: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
On Mar 17, 2005, at 11:14 AM, Anish Karmarkar wrote: >>> If that approach is taken, wouldn't the same apply to the >>> [relationship] property? Instead of defining the IRI: >>> http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/reply we would have to define >>> something like a [reply-relationship] property. >> >> Are you suggesting the spec is inconsistent and plan on raising >> another issue before or after last call? > > David Hull has already raised this as an issue. Although, I don't > think this has been logged officially as an issue. We discussed this on Monday, and determined that it should not be added to the issues list, as it seemed to be covered by i042. Looking more closely at the description and resolution of i042, there is some ambiguity; it's not clear that MAP extensibility was explicitly covered by the resolution therein. Even so, David agreed that, considering the tenor of discussion on Monday, he could live with a solution that simply clarified how existing extensibility was to be used to achieve his goals, rather than reworking the spec itself. Pursuant to this, he took an AI to work with the editors on some text, which he started to explore at the start of this thread. The WG seemed to agree that this was the preferable path forward. If you or another WG Member is disputing that, we can discuss the issue again on Monday, and work towards a more formal resolution. Please contact me if this is the case so that I can make space for it on the agenda. Also, if you plan on supporting this issue's opening, please assure that your preferred proposal is complete and well-described on the list before then. Regards, -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
Received on Friday, 18 March 2005 00:34:24 UTC