- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:38:35 +0600
- To: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi Amy, > Certainly that's more complete and convincing. It's also unlikely to > happen, because there just won't be agreement within the WG on other > bindings. Is the argument, then, that if the working group can't commit > to fully specifying a binding, it shouldn't provide any guidance, or > even help as requested by those who are doing so? Speaking for myself: If the primer has an example of a new MEP and a new binding for that MEP, I won't jump up and down about it at all. I think that's great because it'll show people how to actually use one of the key extensibility points of our language. Note that many of Rich Salz's comments were about how the spec is written and not about the content. He seems to think we had no plans for a primer (of course he prolly didn't bother to check and certainly didn't bother to ask .. nor did he bother to correct it when I told him that we had a normative schema and a primer). Sanjiva.
Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 16:39:14 UTC