[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: WS-Addressing to W3C: Is the Tide Turning?
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 02:41:21PM -0400, Michael Champion wrote: > So, the question seems to me to boil down to whether this > needs standardizing, in which case XML seems like the obvious choice, > or whether it should remain opaque implementation detail, in which case > a URI seems like the obvious choice. I look at it a bit differently. The URI is the identification mechanism of the Web, and an EPR is an identifier. So from that perspective, I think it's quite clear that an EPR should be a URI. The question then, I believe, is whether or not Web service agents should be peeking into URIs to pull out "reference properties and parameters". The TAG has made its view clear on this question, at least; "Agents making use of URIs SHOULD NOT attempt to infer properties of the referenced resource except as specified by relevant specifications." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#uri-opacity > IMHO, standardization of this stuff makes sense, even though *at > present* the different implementation components that need to exchange > routing information tend to be proprietary or custom-written. After > all, you have a bunch of fierce competitors coming to the W3C and > saying that they would like to see a Recommendation for this so that > they can interoperate better. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of > the doubt. Hmm, I guess I'll be nice and just say "no comment". 8-) > Also, at long last we seem to be getting past the > "technical" debates that for some inexplicable reason :-) tended to > line up on industry alliance boundaries. The absolutely last thing the > W3C should do, assuming they want to ever get a web services submission > again, is say "thanks, but no thanks, we don't think that needs to be > standardized." Well, I can see it both ways, but I agree with Bill that they should be accepted or rejected based on their technical merit. So far, the W3C has been doing, IMHO, a very poor job at submission evaluation. P.S., there's a great example of an EPR in the spec which is just begging to be a URI; <wsa:EndpointReference xmlns:wsa="..." xmlns:fabrikam="..."> <wsa:Address>http://www.fabrikam123.example/acct</wsa:Address> <wsa:ReferenceProperties> <fabrikam:CustomerKey>123456789</fabrikam:CustomerKey> </wsa:ReferenceProperties> <wsa:ReferenceParameters> <fabrikam:ShoppingCart>ABCDEFG</fabrikam:ShoppingCart> </wsa:ReferenceParameters> </wsa:EndpointReference> Compare with one of these, or another of your making ... http://www.fabrikam123.example/acct?CustomerKey=123456789&ShoppingCart=ABCDEFG http://www.fabrikam123.example/acct/123456789?ShoppingCart=ABCDEFG Mark.
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|