Re: Moving to CR: proposed exit criteria, feastures at risk

Hi Stephen,

It's better to be clear than ambiguous. Your proposed edit is closer to
the point I wanted to make in that sentence. We were thinking about
the same thing, but I didn't express it correctly.

I changed the paragraph as follows:

  ... one complete implementation stands for both a client and a server
  interoperable implementation (the client and server 
  instances may in fact be separate implementations)

Thanks for pointing out this. Tell me if the above paragraph still
needs changing.

-jose

On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 10:35:37AM +0000, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> You said:
> 
> "...one
> complete implementation stands for both a client and a server
> interoperable implementation"
> 
> But, for clarity, I'd prefer:
> 
> "one
> complete implementation stands for both a client and a server
> interoperable implementation (though the client and server
> instances may in fact be separate implementations)"
> 
> Maybe it could be better worded, but I want to be able to
> count cases where someone who implements a server or only
> implements a client, e.g. if Foo only did a server and
> Bar only did a client, I'd like the count the combination
> of Foo and Bar as a "complete implementation".