Just in case you have not seen this, It appears RefProps will be removed from EPR's. Something we should discuss. Abdeslem ///////////////// -----Original Message----- From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Ugo Corda Sent: 20 January 2005 01:33 To: Mark Little; Mark Baker Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org Subject: RE: Issue #1 proposed resolution Mark and Mark, It looks like RefProps are gone as of yesterday: see http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i001 . Ugo
-----Original Message----- From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Little Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 5:26 PM To: Mark Baker Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org Subject: Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution
Mark, I have a distinct dislike for RefProps/RefParams, as you're aware. However, putting my pragmatic hat on for a moment, I don't see them vanishing in this release of the specification. That doesn't prevent us from debating their utility (or lack thereof), but I suspect it would be better to take it off this mailing list if we're to try to maintain the timeline that was proposed by the submitters and agreed upon by the members of the group. Who knows, there may be a change in a subsequent release?
Also, I'm not sure why you moved my text around, but it could change the context of what was originally intended. I didn't mention the word "identification" at all in the proposed text I said.
Mark.
---- Mark Little, Chief Architect, Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
www.arjuna.com
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org> To: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com> Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 12:26 AM Subject: Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution
Mark,
On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 10:41:53PM -0000, Mark Little wrote:
I think the pragmatic view on RefProps/RefParams has to be that they will stay (rightly or wrongly, there are implementations and specifications out there that now rely on them).
This is a new spec we're working on, no? Those implementations can continue to depend upon whatever version of the spec they currently depend upon. Nothing we do here can break them, AFAICT.
I agree that the term "identifier" can be contentious. However, so can the term "state". How about just calling it/them "additional information that referencing specifications [aka using specifications] or implementations need in order to ultimately address the endpoint service"?
From my POV, there appears to be agreement to removing the part of the spec that talks about using RefProps for identification. Adding "in order to ultimately address" back in would be akin to undoing that change. The point of the change, as I see it, is to get identifying information out of the RefPs, and into the URI, and I consider that an enormous improvement over the WS-A submission.
That way we're not saying *what* goes in there, only *why*.
IMO, identification is a "what".
Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca