- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:41:57 -0700
- To: "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>, "Mark Nottingham" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E868A8F7@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
You wrote: Put another way, I don't see how the non-defaulting-and-required-ness of [action] makes it any more significant as a signal that WSA was intended. I don't think it is any more significant. It's simply easier to look for wsa:Action than search all of the headers for the wsa namespace. If you wish to argue our decision is arbitrary, I'll agree! But I still support it as the simplest way to define the behavior, and thus the most likely to get interoperability. ________________________________ From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Hull Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 1:13 PM To: Mark Nottingham Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org Subject: Re: Now that the train has left the station ... Mark Nottingham wrote: My recollection was that this was covered, at least tangentally, at the F2F; to stretch your metaphor, someone wearing black might not be a student at that institution, but if they wear something that's black and has the crest of the university, they probably are. Similarly, while the presence of the Action *property* doesn't mean much, the header we define has a more restricted semantic; if you don't want people to infer that you have addressing engaged, you can still populate the property with another mechanism (e.g., a header with a different QName). Sure, but I tend to think that argument holds for any wsa: header. Put another way, I don't see how the non-defaulting-and-required-ness of [action] makes it any more significant as a signal that WSA was intended. Cheers, On 11/10/2005, at 3:57 PM, David Hull wrote: ... I think I finally put my finger on the other reason I don't like about keying "WSA is engaged" off of [action] instead of any wsa: header. As I understand it, the reasoning is that, since [action] is required and non-defaulting (and, as it happens, the only such), its presence indicates that the intent was to to engage WSA. But the implication is backwards. Intending to engage WSA implies wsa:Action (as it happens), but not vice versa. The students at the Aveda institute downstairs of our office are evidently required to wear all-black, but wearing all-black does not imply that one is studying cosmetology (one might instead be playing rugby for New Zealand, or one might just like black). Be that as it may, I accept that the issue is settled. -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems ________________________________________________________________________ ________ BEAWorld 2005: coming to a city near you. Everything you need for SOA and enterprise infrastructure success. Register now at http://www.bea.com/4beaworld London 11-12 Oct| Paris13-14 Oct| Prague18-19 Oct |Tokyo 25-26 Oct| Beijing 7-8 Dec
Received on Friday, 14 October 2005 20:42:59 UTC