Re: WS-Addressing and URIs

Quoting Mark Baker <distobj@xxxxxxx>:

> If the issue here is that Web services needs to license a client to
> peek into an identifier (which seems to be the case, otherwise why
> would you standardize it?), I would recommend that they define a new
> URI scheme, say, "epr".  This would at least be consistent with the
> webarch good practice item[4] which states;
> 
> "Agents making use of URIs SHOULD NOT attempt to infer properties of the
> referenced resource except as specified by relevant specifications."
> 
> But on the other hand, I don't see why this licensing is required, and
> therefore why a relatively opaque http URI wouldn't suffice.

Even in the case of such "licensing", and ignoring the fact that this amounts to
building mini-webs that aren't fully built into the web, would they still be
unable to use URIs, or even disadvantaged by it.

-- 
Jon Hanna
<http://www.hackcraft.net/>
"I don't like to LOOK out of the windows even - there are so many of those 
creeping women, and they creep so fast."
- Charlotte Perkins Gilman, _The Yellow Wallpaper_