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

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

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:32:45 -0700
Message-ID: <1113DDB24D4A2841951BFDF86665EE1906BF1E9A@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Yes, this applies to section 1.1 too.  No decisions were finalized at
the telcon.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 6:10 AM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Minutes of W3C WSDWG Conference Call, June 26th, 2003
> 
> Does this apply to section 1.1 too (i.e. no conclusion reached, so
keep
> the figure and text)?
> 
> BTW, I have a correction for the minutes: I indicated during the call
> that, if we were to drop the figures, we should keep revert to the
> previous version of the text and not simply drop the text alltogether.
> The current text is a revamp of earlier text, which was existed long
> before the Rennes F2F.
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> 
> > David wrote:
> >
> >>Gotcha, sorry for my confusion.  I was asking about
> >>"<sanjiva> JM point 1: anyone against removing @targetResource
> >><sdl-scribe> no one on call seems to object".
> >
> >
> > No one on the call objected.  Some pointed out that others not on
the
> > call were likely to object.  And some thought that we first needed
to
> > revisit the single-interface-per-service decision before deciding
it.
> > So we didn't actually get a resolution although we were close :-).
It's
> > hard to take full and accurate minutes on a fast-paced and varied
> > discussion like we had today.
> 
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 13:32:56 GMT

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