W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-meps@w3.org > July 2003

RE: Wednesday MEP call?

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:49:38 -0700
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA274F60B@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <public-ws-desc-meps@w3.org>

I'm afraid I'll have to bag out too, with the XSL WG FTF ongoing...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-meps-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-meps-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Booth
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 2:46 PM
> To: public-ws-desc-meps@w3.org
> Subject: Wednesday MEP call?
> 
> 
> I will be on an airplane at the time of our scheduled MEP
teleconference
> Wednesday July 16, so I will not be able to make the call.
> 
> However, if others are able to meet, please go ahead.  We have limited
> time
> remaining before our F2F meeting, so we need to make progress as we
can.
> 
> I made note of the following remaining issues.  Are there others?
> 
> 
> Remaining Issues in MEP TF
> ==========================
> 
> 1. Address remaining questions on the p2 family (p2e versus p2c).
Should
> we adopt p2c1?   (See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-meps/2003Jul/att-
> 0015/030714-ws-desc-irc.htm
> for a definition of p2c1.)  What would be the impact?  Should we adopt
> both
> p2c1 and p2e?
> 
> 2. Unicast versus multicast.  Are there additional issues we need to
> cover?
> 
> 3. Modeling faults.  Are there additional recommendations we can make
> about
> faults?  For example, could the two fault rules be reduced to a single
> "message triggers fault" rule?  If so, what would be lost, and would
it
> matter?
> 
> 4. Which pattern variations should we recommend?
> 
> 5. Correspondence to SOAP MEPs.
> 
> 
> --
> David Booth
> W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2003 18:49:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 25 March 2005 11:17:39 GMT