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

RE: is operation/@pattern optional?

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:15:59 +0200
Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061D0E07DB2F@uspalx20a.pal.sap.corp>
To: "'Jonathan Marsh'" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>, Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: tomj@macromedia.com, www-ws-desc@w3.org



>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
>Sent: Tuesday, Oct 19, 2004 10:28 AM
>To: Amelia A Lewis; Sanjiva Weerawarana
>Cc: tomj@macromedia.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org
>Subject: RE: is operation/@pattern optional?
>
>
>
>FWIW, my recollection matches Amy's that we agreed to leave @pattern a
>required attribute.  But don't let that stop you from searching the
>archives!
>

I am glad that you remember it like that as well. I have the same recollection that Amy has. I was afraid it was going to be a boys-vs-girls thing. ;-)

Cheers, 

--umit

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
>On
>> Behalf Of Amelia A Lewis
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 9:08 AM
>> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
>> Cc: tomj@macromedia.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: is operation/@pattern optional?
>> 
>> 
>> Hmmm.
>> 
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:58:53 +0600
>> Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>> > I make it a point to remember my side of the story ;-) .. so
>> > are we now at a "he said, she said" case??? If so 2-1, that's
>> > a *clear* victory I'd say! No hanging chads even.
>> 
>> No, we're now at a "my recollection of our decisions doesn't 
>match the
>> specification," which is where we started.  I think that, all things
>> considered, it is up to you (or to Tom, if he feels strongly, or
>someone
>> else who feels strongly in favor of making this change to the current
>> specification as published) to find a record, in the minutes, showing
>> that this [adjectives suppressed] decision was taken.
>> 
>> I don't think you can, mind, because I distinctly recall that it was
>> voted down.  I believe that this was going on about the time of the
>New
>> York face to face, possibly earlier.  But I'm sure that, if you want
>to
>> modify the specification, you'll either find minutes to justify it as
>> editorial, or you'll raise it as an issue.
>> 
>> :-)
>> 
>> Amy!
>> --
>> Amelia A. Lewis
>> Senior Architect
>> TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
>> alewis@tibco.com
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2004 19:16:35 GMT

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