+1. And we need to be consistent with this when [if] we decide to define "synchronous" and "asynchronous"..... > I'd like to drain this trout pond. I propose making sure that the glossary > definition of "protocol independence" includes the concept that a Web > service invocation has the same effect irrespective of the protocol or > protocol-level features used to transmit it, and to action the editors to > use Dave Orchard's discussion of "visibility" in the document and glossary > where appropriate. > > That way we can move on, and Mark or whomever can raise a formal issue that > we will record and address for consideration by others later in the W3C > process. Of course, if someone on the WG wants to discuss this further, we > can do that. > > I'm sure this will be seen as another sign of "the management" exerting > schedule, but I think of it as just taking down the "Gone Fishin'" sign off > the office door. :-) >Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 09:05:26 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:15 GMT