- From: Conor P. Cahill <ConCahill@aol.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 08:41:20 -0500
- To: "'Mark Little'" <mark.little@jboss.com>, "'Paul Fremantle'" <pzfreo@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Cahill, Conor P" <conor.p.cahill@intel.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> If it's optional, why not have it as a full-blown EPR anyway? > To be honest, I'd also be happy with something rather than > nothing, but I'd be interested in knowing reasons for URI > rather than EPR. EPRs are generally used when I intend to dereference them to] communicate with another party. At this point there's no processing rules that I would use to make use of expanded fields in an EPR. Of course, <From> could have xs:anyAttribute and an xs:any sub-element definition so that in your particular environment anything could be added. Just that the basic model from From is identifiying the other party -- which seems to be what I've heard here. Conor
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2006 13:41:43 UTC