Re: WS-Addressing and URIs

Quoting Mark Baker <>:

> If the issue here is that Web services needs to license a client to
> peek into an identifier (which seems to be the case, otherwise why
> would you standardize it?), I would recommend that they define a new
> URI scheme, say, "epr".  This would at least be consistent with the
> webarch good practice item[4] which states;
> "Agents making use of URIs SHOULD NOT attempt to infer properties of the
> referenced resource except as specified by relevant specifications."
> But on the other hand, I don't see why this licensing is required, and
> therefore why a relatively opaque http URI wouldn't suffice.

Even in the case of such "licensing", and ignoring the fact that this amounts to
building mini-webs that aren't fully built into the web, would they still be
unable to use URIs, or even disadvantaged by it.

Jon Hanna
"I don't like to LOOK out of the windows even - there are so many of those 
creeping women, and they creep so fast."
- Charlotte Perkins Gilman, _The Yellow Wallpaper_

Received on Monday, 30 August 2004 15:17:08 UTC