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

RE: new version of requirements draft available

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:13:19 -0700
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E7C948F@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "'Christopher B Ferris'" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org

No, I don't have any specifics at hand.  I'm basically just saying, since
I'm going to be out of touch for a while, "Don't let the memory that I was
fond of those simplicity things stop you from turfing them if that seems to
be the consensus".  I think it's important to get moving, and I don't want
to be an impediment, particularly on the basis of an issue like that one.

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 2:53 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: new version of requirements draft available



Roger,

I updated the doc to reflect all of the resolutions we made during the f2f
as captured in the minutes at[1]. If you feel that we agreed to more than
what is captured there, please send specifics to the list. You might also
make sure that you have the latest draft, and not a cached version. The
title/date in the document should be: Editor's Draft 14 June 2002

Thanks,

Chris


 

                      "Cutler, Roger

                      (RogerCutler)"              To:       Christopher B
Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS, www-ws-arch@w3.org               
                      <RogerCutler@chevron        cc:

                      texaco.com>                 Subject:  RE: new version
of requirements draft available                          
 

                      06/24/2002 10:56 AM

 

 




I thought that there was a lot more progress, mostly in the sense of getting
rid of stuff, in D-AC005 (simplicity).  I mention this because I think I was
mostly the one defending the items to be turfed.  If you are keeping them in
there because you think I am lying down in the road, please go ahead and
pitch them.  I stated my opinion -- if I had gotten a bunch of agreement
that would be one thing, but I did not.  I don't want to impede progress and
I don't think that these things are worth spending a lot of time and energy
over.  I think most people more or less agree with the objectives, including
the editors.  The issue is whether it is appropriate to state them
explicitly in the document, and I am perfectly willing to go with the
prevalent opinion on this.

-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 7:42 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: new version of requirements draft available



I've uploaded a new version of the WSAWG Requirements draft at[1] and [2].
It reflects all of the resolutions of the F2F in Paris.

Cheers,

Chris

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/06/wd-wsa-reqs-20020605.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/06/wd-wsa-reqs-20020605.xml
Received on Monday, 24 June 2002 16:15:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:01 GMT