W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > January 2004

RE: Updated glossary

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:11:59 -0600
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E031328C0@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org

Comments INLINE.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 6:09 AM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Updated glossary


...

> - Implementation:  Is this necessary?  If so, it seems a bit too brief

> and cryptic to me.  If it is necessary I think it should be expanded 
> so that it is clear what value the definition adds.  Frankly I'd 
> rather see it go away, however.

It was proposed by you:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Feb/0019.html

I don't mind removing it. I have flagged it as such.

THIS WOULD BE IRONIC IF TRUE, BUT AS FAR AS I CAN SEE I JUST SAID
"GOOD", SO MAYBE I'VE JUST BECOME MORE CRITICAL.

...

> - Resource:  Seems to me that there may be an issue here, but that 
> it's not OUR issue and that if we say there's an ussue we should also 
> say something along those lines.

I think that this is our issue since we are calling something with a
name of another widely used thing which is slightly different.

OK, IN THAT CASE I suggest that we take responsibility for what we do,
define it how we want to, conceivably pointing out that it differs from
someone else's usage , and leave it at that.  No apologies needed and no
issue as far as we are concerned.
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 11:15:13 GMT

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