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

Re: Summary, 9-11 Nov 2004 WS Description WG FTF: two objections

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:38:35 +0600
Message-ID: <06dd01c4d0b1$b7435ad0$bcffff0a@LANKABOOK>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:33 GMT