I have already suggested some possible improvements at [1]. Basically, I like the proposal, but I would be inclined to unify the concept of context with that of message parts, if possible. Also, I think contexts as described by Sanjiva bear some ressemblance with what I think Glen and I have in mind for features and properties at the abstract level. So, I expect that we will be discussing contexts in the context (sic) of the PFTF. Jean-Jacques. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0064.html Jonathan Marsh wrote: > For those of you who didn't hear it on today's call, please review and > comment upon Paco's fault naming proposal and Sanjiva's context > proposal. We plan to discuss these proposals further on our next > telcon. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 6. Fault naming. Paco suggests eliminating fault names [.1]. Some > support at [.2]. > > [.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0045.html > [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0047.html > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 7. Context proposal from Sanjiva [.1]. > > [.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0063.html > > >Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 03:16:02 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:22 GMT