Re: 1st draft on primer ignorable

Prasad

Thanks

Perhaps we should agree a deadline for comment, then I can send out  
as editor proposal after that date? Asir, when would be good and  
reasonable for you given your schedule?

I was assuming we wanted to make this available for discussion during  
the F2F. However, if we agree that is not the case then there is no  
rush. If we do want it for the F2F then we need to decide when it  
should go out.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia


On Jan 8, 2007, at 1:10 PM, ext Prasad Yendluri wrote:

> AI 172 was on the editors to send a proposal. I take you would want  
> send
> this proposal against that AI. Since we discussed this in the editors
> already, it would be good to send the refined proposal. I think  
> Asir said,
> he plans to review, not sure if he can do it in time for tomorrow?  
> Since
> there is no LC or other impending deadline we don't need to rush I  
> think.
>
> Thanks,
> Prasad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederick Hirsch [mailto:frederick.hirsch@nokia.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 10:01 AM
> To: ext Prasad Yendluri
> Cc: Frederick Hirsch; ext Asir Vedamuthu; WS-Policy Editors W3C
> Subject: Re: 1st draft on primer ignorable
>
> So shall I send the revised proposal to the TC list, and allow
> comment from work group? Perhaps I should send as my proposal, rather
> than from Editors?
>
> My concern is making effective use of the F2F time.
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
> On Jan 8, 2007, at 12:37 PM, ext Prasad Yendluri wrote:
>
>> Hi Frederick,
>>
>> I think what Asir is concerned about is that we have an open issue
>> (http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4041) and AI on the
>> editors
>> to get back to the WG with a proposal
>> (http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/172). We  
>> (editors)
>> generally incorporate the changes after the WG's formal approval
>> when there
>> is a directly related issue open. We do not incorporate the
>> proposed changes
>> into the checked in versions. Your proposal is pretty good and I
>> think it
>> would just go through quickly on the next WG call if we can send it
>> to the
>> WG by tomorrow.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Prasad
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick
>> Hirsch
>> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 9:15 AM
>> To: ext Asir Vedamuthu
>> Cc: Frederick Hirsch; ext Prasad Yendluri; WS-Policy Editors W3C
>> Subject: Re: 1st draft on primer ignorable
>>
>>
>> I do not understand why we cannot show progress to date to the TC
>> unless there is a serious issue.
>>
>> regards, Frederick
>>
>> Frederick Hirsch
>> Nokia
>>
>>
>> On Jan 8, 2007, at 11:51 AM, ext Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
>>
>>>> If we agree on doing this then I will make the
>>>> changes and this can
>>>> be included in the red-line Asir generates.
>>>
>>> This is not the current practice. Can't think of a reason why this
>>> proposal needs to be rushed in. BTW, this is the second time we are
>>> discussing this process question (we discussed a similar process
>>> question in the last week of Nov 06).
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Asir S Vedamuthu
>>> Microsoft Corporation
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
>>> [mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick
>>> Hirsch
>>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 12:51 PM
>>> To: ext Prasad Yendluri
>>> Cc: Frederick Hirsch; WS-Policy Editors W3C
>>> Subject: Re: 1st draft on primer ignorable
>>>
>>>
>>> Prasad
>>>
>>> Thanks for the helpful review, I agree with all your changes and
>>> suggest we remove the line
>>> " Providers should not lie and the Ignorable marker allows them  
>>> to be
>>> truthful."
>>>
>>> I propose we include these changes in the red-line set of documents
>>> we provide the committee. This lets the  committee see it (as a
>>> DRAFT) at the F2F and possibly provide constructive feedback.
>>>
>>> I understand there was an issue raised by Ashok but believe there  
>>> was
>>> strong committee agreement to keep ignorable as we agreed. Thus it
>>> would make sense to have this text in place. I can remove it if we
>>> have to.
>>>
>>> If we agree on doing this then I will make the changes and this can
>>> be included in the red-line Asir generates.
>>>
>>> Please let me know so I can do this in a timely manner. Asir, does
>>> this make sense to you?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> regards, Frederick
>>>
>>> Frederick Hirsch
>>> Nokia
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 5, 2007, at 1:49 PM, ext Prasad Yendluri wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Frederick,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for doing this. Looks pretty complete to me.
>>>> I have attached a marked up copy with a few of my comments /
>>>> suggested
>>>> changes.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> Prasad
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
>>>> [mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick
>>>> Hirsch
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:56 AM
>>>> To: WS-Policy Editors W3C
>>>> Cc: Hirsch Frederick
>>>> Subject: 1st draft on primer ignorable
>>>>
>>>> Attached is 1st draft on adding ignorable to primer. I think we can
>>>> do this simply by adding two new sections as noted.
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know if you think I should add it in today to get it
>>>> into the draft for the F2F, or if you have any other suggestion or
>>>> comment.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> regards, Frederick
>>>>
>>>> Frederick Hirsch
>>>> Nokia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <ignorable-proposal-PY.doc>
>>>
>>>
>>

Received on Monday, 8 January 2007 18:21:54 UTC