W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > April 2005

Re: Proposal against issue 1001

From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:45:27 +0100
Message-Id: <93abcf25e98bf8815861e9555590579f@enigmatec.net>
Cc: "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
To: "Nickolas Kavantzas" <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>

Nick,

I have already looked at the minutes but they do not properly capture 
the discussions hence the request to further
clarify. One of our concerns is to scope this to solve a particular 
problem and not "boil the ocean" as you often put it.
So the way for all WG members to approach the issue is does the 
proposal solve the problems raised in the issue.
Of course we would love to solve wider problems but that at this time 
is not a concern. The only concern is the issue
at hand. So what we need is solid objections or guidance from WG 
members on the proposal (i.e. I like this bit
and I don't like this bit because ....). It's the "...." that is 
missing and without it is difficult if not impossible to second
guess.

Cheers

Steve T

On 18 Apr 2005, at 18:35, Nickolas Kavantzas wrote:

>
> Steve,
>
> I think that we've discussed this issue 2 or 3 weeks back.
> Can we scavange the minutes of the conf-call ?
>
> Many of the concerns/issues regarding this proposal were discussed in 
> that
> conf-call.
>
> --
> Nick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Ross-Talbot" <steve@enigmatec.net>
> To: "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 7:39 AM
> Subject: Fwd: Proposal against issue 1001
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@pi4tech.com>
>>> Date: 18 April 2005 15:01:26 BST
>>> To: 'WS-Choreography List' <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
>>> Subject: Proposal against issue 1001
>>>
>>> ISSUE:
>>> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1001
>>>
>>> PROPOSAL:
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005Feb/0032.html
>>>
>>> We would ask the WG members to raise issues against this proposal by
>>> email rather than using a conf call.
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Steve T
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 18 April 2005 21:45:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:07 UTC