Tom +1. I think its more useful as an EPR. For example, I can imagine putting some SLA related info in the From extensibility points. Paul On 2/8/06, Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> wrote: > > 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 > > > -- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle paul@wso2.com "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 09:58:30 UTC