W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > January 2005

RE: issue 1 on editor's copy

From: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:17:47 -0500
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC238275D.FC3F693D-ON85256F94.0053D204-85256F94.0054070D@us.ibm.com>

That makes sense. The problem is then that the minutes do not capture the
full extent of the resolution and this lack of accuracy has been propagated
to the issues list.


                      "Martin Gudgin"                                                                                                   
                      <mgudgin@microsof        To:       Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>              
                      t.com>                   cc:                                                                                      
                                               Subject:  RE: issue 1 on editor's copy                                                   
                      01/25/2005 10:02                                                                                                  

The editors implement whatever's in the issues list as the resolution.
We can't do anything else really, as neither of us is likely to remember
all the resolutions down pat.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
> Francisco Curbera
> Sent: 25 January 2005 13:53
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: issue 1 on editor's copy
> As per yesterday's call I assumed that all resolutions taken
> at our last
> f2f had been applied to the latest editor's draft. However,
> it seems that
> part of the resolution of issue 1 has not; in particular, we
> decided to
> clean up the spec from all implications that EPRs are
> identifiers; the text
> sprinkled all around (the intro in particular, other places as well)
> stating that EPRs are identifiers had to go.  Maybe I
> misunderstood the
> status of the editing work, though.
> In this same respect, the minutes of our f2f (1/18) do not
> state this point
> explicitly, which was specifically clarified a couple of
> times right before
> the vote.
> Paco
Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2005 15:18:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:08 UTC