I support Frederick's proposal, nominally as-amended by Paul.
In terms of the proposed ammendments to the proposal, on item (3), in terms of
the proposed revised text, there is a SHOULD and a MAY that ought to be
capitalized...
Tokens and elements that are defined in this specification and
related profiles to use wsu:Id attributes SHOULD do so, additional
profiles and other elements to be signed MAY choose to use xml:id or
wsu:Id. ...
WRT this assertion..
> Rationale: We cannot make support of xml:id mandatory since it breaks
> backwards compatibility with WSS 1.0 and it is inappropriate to force
> implementers to support xml:id so soon after it becomes a
> Recommendation.
...it has me wondering this meta-question: "what's the point of WSSv1.1 if we
don't see any need for folks to update their toolkits? If they're in there
changing them, adding support for xml:id likely isn't that hard."
i.e. why can't we have language that effective says "All receivers MUST be able
to identify XML elements carrying either a wsu:Id or an xml:id attribute" ?
But, I can live with it being a "SHOULD".
I will not be able to make the Tue 6-Sep WSSTC concall, unfortunately, due to
travel.
If a decision on this proposal comes down to a roll-call vote, I request it
done via email or punted to the next meeting. I don't know if I personally will
have regained voting privs in any case, but I understand that various folks may
not be able to make this coming Tues meeting (eg this Mon is a US holiday), and
would like to see this issue get the broadest participation we can provide as I
think it has long-term subtle-but-important implications.
thanks,
JeffH
