- From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
- Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 11:45:20 -0500
- To: "Conor P. Cahill" <ConCahill@aol.com>
- Cc: 'Mark Little' <mark.little@jboss.com>, 'Paul Fremantle' <pzfreo@gmail.com>, "Cahill, Conor P" <conor.p.cahill@intel.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Conor P. Cahill wrote: > > > > I would prefer that we keep the syntax for this "will hardly ever be used" feature to be retained as in the CR (namely an EPR). Making the syntax "simpler" would take away some of the "hardly ever used" uses people might make of wsa:from. Tom Rutt >>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 > > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2006 16:45:54 UTC