W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > May 2003

RE: Draft language on MEPs, synchronous, and asynchronous.

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 13:08:54 -0500
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E026EF68E@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

OK.

-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 12:02 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Draft language on MEPs, synchronous, and asynchronous.





>
> 
> I'm sorry, I still think this is just giving up and that in fact the 
> terms have a domain of validity in which they can be rigorously 
> defined.
>

Perhaps, and I also find some good food for thought in Suresh's
proposal(s). On the other hand, we need to focus on the questions that
people are looking for answers to, and I don't think this is one of
them.  Geoff's rejoinder to my attempt over the weekend to extract a
"friendly amendment" was a good
one:  by getting "rigorous" we start bringing in dependencies on
implementation-specific notions such as "communications channel,"
which
then have to be defined.

Procedurally, we were at the point of agreeing to whatever way Chris and
Geoff came up with of resolving their different perspectives.  They have
done that, Geoff has accepted some suggested tweaks, and I think it's
time incorporate them and look for new fish to fry.  

Unless there is a substantial body of opinion that says "we MUST resolve
this better before we can move on" I'd suggest we move on.  Dissenters
are welcome to record an issue so that we are more or less required to
revisit the matter before leaving Last Call.
Received on Monday, 5 May 2003 14:10:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:18 GMT