W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2004

RE: Minutes: 29 July 2004 telcon

From: Allen Brookes <abrookes@roguewave.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:57:50 -0700
Message-ID: <D486606E7AD20947BDB7E56862E04C39CE0467@cvo1.cvo.roguewave.com>
To: 'Umit Yalcinalp' <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>, Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Cc: Allen Brookes <abrookes@roguewave.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org

Sorry for the confusion.  There were two issues under "Glen's property
comments".  I missed the switch in the discussion from one to the other and
thus didn't clearly indicate that the action was for the second.
 
Allen

-----Original Message-----
From: Umit Yalcinalp [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 3:45 PM
To: Glen Daniels
Cc: Allen Brookes; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Minutes: 29 July 2004 telcon




Glen Daniels wrote:


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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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



  

Well, the way the minutes minutes read is a bit misleading that is why i
wanted the clarification of the minutes. It will be hard to remember what
happened 2 months from now as there are several issues listed in this
section. 

Thanks for the clarification, 

--umit


-- 

Umit Yalcinalp                                  

Consulting Member of Technical Staff

ORACLE

Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          

Email:  umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com <mailto:umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com> 
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2004 19:01:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT