David Orchard wrote: >... > > 4. Get real. To be blunt, if this group decides that it wants to re-invent > choregraphy languages from ground up with n inputs, it will be a total waste > of time. Is it appropriate to translate that as: "The problem is already solved and it is now the W3C's responsibility to rubber-stamp a solution (perhaps with tweaks) whether it meets any real business need or not." In the long run, it will bein the W3C's best interest to let other standards bodies handled doomed specifications. I am personally relieved that it wasn't tainted with the ongoing UDDI debacle. IMHO, this choreography stuff is just as wrong-headed and in conflict with the way the Web handles state. Paul PrescodReceived on Monday, 21 October 2002 17:00:18 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:09 GMT