I’m opposed to any description of a
pure extension in the protocol - even transfers of description (which would not
be very useful, unless backed up by some real description and agreement).
Regards,
Andre
From: Rich Thompson
[mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 22 August 2005 17:44
To: wsrp
Subject: RE: [wsrp]
ExtensionDescription
Andre
Kramer wrote:
> My fundamental concerns are totally with regards to the definition of
extensions that
> are outside the scope of WSRP. These, as I understand it, are to be
carried in <extensions>
> elements containing an “any” value and for reason of future
evolution and extensibility should
> be left open and not described in our protocol IMHO.
As far as I know, no one has proposed describing extensions within the
protocol. What has
been proposed is providing an in-band means for transferring a description of
an extension.
Rich ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates
this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php