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

Re: issue 1 on editor's copy

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:30:05 -0800
Message-Id: <C099938C-6EF6-11D9-A5F8-000A95BD86C0@bea.com>
Cc: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
To: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>

Paco,

Yes; my recollection was that option 1 included incorporating a shift 
away from identification, while leaving the text about comparison in 
(because you can compare two wsa:address URIs).

Unfortunately, the minutes don't capture the resolutions in detail, so 
we should reaffirm this on next week's call.

Editors, please prepare a draft that takes this view of the resolution 
into account and re-publish. If the group comes to a different 
conclusion, we can backtrack then.

Regards,


On Jan 25, 2005, at 7:17 AM, Francisco Curbera wrote:

>
> 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.
>
> Paco
>
>
>
>
>                       "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
>                       AM
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> Gudge
>
>> -----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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2005 17:30:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:01 GMT