- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:38:08 +0100
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, www-tag@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
noah_mendelsohn writes:
> Henry Thompson asks:
>
>> Why not use the following URI to identify that endpoint:
>>
>> http://example.com/fabrikam/acct?fabrikam:CustomerKey=412
> I feel like I'm missing something. This proposal seems to take the
> namespace prefix, which has almost no semantic significance in the EPR,
> and makes it the qualifier for the query string parameter in the URI.>
The suggestion made at the f2f, as I understood it, was to allow
only the prefixes which were bound in the WSDL description identified
by the primary URI, i.e. http://example.com/fabrikam/acct.
ht
- --
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDV1d0kjnJixAXWBoRAjNmAJ4qLsHG5/6digUKgCl04bwTJDH13ACdGBIX
ct6YYI1lgJSFyD7uhbWbDv4=
=xsog
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2005 08:38:38 UTC