- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 16:46:10 -0500
- To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On 3/29/06, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com> wrote: > There is no reason why the immediate destination and the ultimate > destination can't be the same and in case of the HTTP binding the two > will collapse to always be the same. Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, in the case where there's no non-terminating SOAP/HTTP intermediary, that would be consistent with Web arch. Fair enough. So while the ambiguity I pointed out is a problem with the spec because it yields work which is incompatible with Web arch - as demonstrated by the WS-Addressing SOAP binding's failure to populate the value of the ImmediateDestination property (presumably due to the WG assuming that ImmediateDestination never identifies the ultimate recipient, per that ambiguity) - I agree that there's at least one Web architecture-friendly use of the spec. Thanks, Henrik. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 21:46:28 UTC