W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Summary: D-AG0011

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 14:20:41 -0500
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, michael.mahan@nokia.com, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020401142041.L7984@www.markbaker.ca>
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 10:48:29AM -0800, David Orchard wrote:
> If the TAG does define the
> web architecture, then we can evaluate.  If the TAG doesn't define the web
> architecture, then there's nothing to evaluate against - so we'd have to
> drop the CSFs.

But there's an intermediate state there, which would be that the TAG
does define Web architecture, just not in time to be of use to us.
That's why I think that it doesn't hurt for us to take a stab at it
ourselves with Mike's CSFs, because we have a job to do that must
continue, even if the TAG doesn't publish a thing.

> document.  BTW, I consider this a good thing, it's about time there was this
> kind of work.  We're kind of proceeding stepwise right now, 1 week on
> issues, 1 week on documentation.

Agreed.

> But I also think that it won't cover some of the CSFs that are listed.   In
> this case, the CSFs would be incorrect

Well, I don't believe the TAG should be able to preclude us from
accepting Web architectural principles that it isn't able to come to
concensus agreement on.  Though certainly, it will be more difficult for
us to come to concensus on something if the TAG hasn't done so 8-).

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 14:19:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:57 GMT