RE: Minutes: 29 July 2004 telcon

Hi Umit:

> >11. Other new issues
> > - Glen's property comments [.1, .2]
> > - Glen's composition model comment [.3] - Don't reopen!
> > - Help with unique GED language [.4]
> > - Issue 211 resolution clarification [.5]
> > - pls review text added for what "required" means [.6]  [.1] 
> ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0319.html>
> > [.2] 
> ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0320.html>
> > [.3] 
> ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0323.html>
> > [.4] 
> ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0328.html>
> > [.5] 
> ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0331.html>
> > [.6] 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0333.html> 
> >	Glen: Required flag on properties makes no sense 
> >	... must be understood by the runtime anyway. 
> >	Umit: required means that the property needs to be 
> given a value not 
> >that it be understood
> >	... don't remove now 
> >	Jonathan: we can discuss this next week 
> >	ACTION: editors incorporate "some new text" into 
> section 2.8.1 of part 
> >1
> >
> This is not what we have agreed to. We have agreed not to do 
> right now going to last call, and we will deal with this as a 
> LC issue. I don't think my telephone connection was that bad. ;-)

You're thinking of the wrong issue, Umit.  The text we agreed to was
from my mail at [.2] above, NOT the removal of the required flag on
property, which is what you were concerned about.

--Glen