- From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:34:04 -0700
- To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
One of the main objections I've heard about the previous proposal that Doug sent out was the fact that what is 'addressable' or not, is not defined in a machine verifiable way and certainly not defined by WSA. During the discussion within WSRM there was another solution that was proposed (I think by Gil) which I think would be more acceptable to the ornery (as characterized by Jonathan ;-) ) WSA WG. Introduce a new attribute called wsaw:isAnon whose type is boolean. This attribute can occur on wsa:Address as follows: <wsa:ReplyTo> <wsa:Address wsaw:isAnon='true'> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/anonymous?id=550e8400-e29b-11d4-a716-446655440000 </wsa:Address> <wsa:ReplyTo> The semantics of wsaw:Anonymous='required' would mean that either the ReplyTo/FaultTo wsa:Address is wsa 'none', wsa 'anon' or any other value if the wsaw:isAnon='true'. This would allow the wsaw:Anonymous marker to be enforced unambiguously and without the requirement to understand some other specification that may define another "anonymous" URI. WSRM (or any other spec) now can define their own "anonymous" URI, as they already have, but add the requirement that any use of that URI requires the wsaw:isAnon='true' to be present. -Anish --
Received on Monday, 18 September 2006 18:36:07 UTC