- From: David Illsley <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:12:30 +0100
- To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Cc: Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>, "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
I know I've missed the last call... but unless it was in that one? I don't remember dropping the split response usecase... and the e-mail from Tom on March 23rd suggests he thinks the former interpretation provides support for it. David Illsley Web Services Development MP211, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN +44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049) david.illsley@uk.ibm.com public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 04/02/2007 09:05:31 PM: > > I didn't quite see it that way. Our nested assertions are not crafted to > supported the split usecase. Some time ago we decided against the split > usecase. If we change our mind, we need to provide explicit support for > that. The current proposal G regardless of the interpretation of what it > means to not have a nested assertion does not support the split usecase. > > IIRC, Dave Hull had sent a proposal to support the split usecase. Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Received on Monday, 2 April 2007 20:12:45 UTC