- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 23:24:22 -0400
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 04:55:59AM -0400, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > > "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org> writes: > > The current approach, as reified in many Web services specs > > and this wsdl:binding proposal, is akin to; > > > > <phone>+16132864390</phone) > > WS-Addressing's approach is a bit different. Its roughly like: > <phone> > <number>+1613...</number> > <international-access-#>011</international-access-#> > <outside-access-#>9</outside-access-#> > .. > </phone> Well, that other information (other than "number") isn't identifying information for the terminal. The internationalized phone number remains, by itself, sufficient information for a call to be made in the context of the open phone system (i.e. after you get pass your PBX), and with an up-to-date client which supports them. Another way of looking at what's going on here is that the current Web services approach creates a competing identifier syntax to URIs; "tel:+16132864390" versus "<phone><number>+16132864390</number><phone>" The issue is, there's a spec which describes the syntax of the former (RFC 2396), but not the latter; a spec which identifies one string as an identifier, separate from other data). > Basically an endpoint reference in WS-Addressing is spsed to have all > the data you need to get to the other end. The actual "address", a URI, > in indeed required, but in many cases additional info may be needed > for the recipient to really understand a reference. Putting this additional info in the URI would be a Good Thing, as it would permit late binding. MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Saturday, 26 April 2003 23:22:23 UTC