W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2003

Re: Minutes of W3C WSDWG Conference Call, June 26th, 2003

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 08:29:20 -0400
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030627082919.B1116@www.markbaker.ca>

On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 06:06:11PM +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> This raises an interesting process question for me- as far as I
> can tell there is no new information now from the time we made
> the decisions that are currently spec'ed. So should we be
> discussing it etc. etc.? Some people don't like it, but if we
> don't have some process then its a waste of time going to the
> F2Fs as those decisions are likely to be much more contentious
> in the wider group as F2F has like 10-20 people and this list
> has a lot. So if we re-open everything clearly its non-productive
> to go to the F2F.

Well, prior to my bringing it up, I hadn't heard it mentioned that
targetResource introduces an implementation detail into an interface.
I think DavidB's printer example showed the maintenance issue that
arises because of that.  Some people even agree with me on that
point (gasp! 8-).

Not that I feel that targetResource needs to be removed though; I just
think it needs to be constrained to identify something other than a
runtime resource (i.e. the implementation detail), perhaps like a
"serviceGroup" or something, which has no relationship to the resources
manipulated, but instead just serves to tie together services via a
common name.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 08:24:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:25 GMT