Re: one more requirement

From: Michael A. Dolan (miked@tbt.com)
Date: Mon, Jan 11 1999


Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990111122521.007da200@cts.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:25:21 -0800
To: fin@finseth.com
From: "Michael A. Dolan" <miked@tbt.com>
Cc: www-tv@w3.org, Philipp Hoschka <Philipp.Hoschka@sophia.inria.fr>
Subject: Re: one more requirement

Craig-

In the email I received, there were several people in favor of it, and one
that seemed generally open to it, but had many questions and wanted more
information before including it in the application scenarios.  Can you tell
me who objected to its inclusion anywhere at all?

You have made a proposal to omit my proposal from the application scenarios
document, and infer that it should be omitted from the requirements document.

We indeed agree that the process for managing these documents is not at all
clear.

Philipp, could you provide some guidance on this?

Thanks,
	Mike

At 01:49 PM 1/11/99 -0600, Craig A. Finseth wrote:
>   What I am proposing is that the exact syntax I mentioned be added to the
>   requirements.
>
>   As I mentioned, it may not be appropriate to add this to the application
>   scenarios, and can be put into the requirements document if folks feel
that
>   is more appropriate.
>
>In my opinion, it is not appropriate to add to the application
>examples document.
>
>As we are now in the process of reviewing the requirements document
>itself, it is appropriate for discussion in that context.
>
>At this time, you have made a proposal (to include in the
>requirements) and I have seen at least one objection to its inclusion.
>What we need is a process for resolving this (and presumably other)
>differences of opinion via the list.
>
>Phil?  I'm open to suggestions here...
>
>Craig
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Dolan, Representing DIRECTV,  (619)445-9070   FAX: (619)445-6122
PO Box 1673 Alpine, CA 91903, Overnight: 20239 Japatul Rd, Alpine, CA 91901