- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:05:00 -0500
- To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Cc: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
On Nov 22, 2004, at 1:07 PM, Hugo Haas wrote: >> The fact that some XML can be assumed to be opaque does not preclude >> someone from making decisions based on aspects of that XML. People >> have >> posited that they might have reasons for not wanting to use certain >> reference property/parameter elements. If this is the case, then they >> need to *not* treat the data as opaque and rather use whatever >> criteria >> they choose to deterimine whether the data does or does not fit those >> criteria. > > I think that it's weird to define them as opaque and then, in the > yet-to-be-written security portion of our spec, advice people not to > treat those as opaque, especially as this XML could really be > anything. > Also as Paco said: > If s/he decides to add a header that the endpoint is > already requiring as a ref. property, the requester is breaking the > contract as well (unless the semantics of that header allows multiple > copies). So, in reality, the refps aren't opaque at all, you have to understand their semantics to see if they compose with the rest of the message you intend to send. Marc. --- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 19:05:02 UTC