W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2002

RE: Draft of position on SOAP's use of XML Internal subset

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:09:33 -0500
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: dorchard@bea.com, fallside@us.ibm.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC77B318C.504D3837-ON85256C87.005373F2@lotus.com>

How about this as a middle ground:  I'm not sure I'll have time before 
this goes out (lots of snow shoveling to do.)  If I have time, and if 
nobody objects in the next few hours, I'll put in a note along the lines 
of:

"While it did not actually contribute to the group's decisions, it has 
since been observed that RFC xxx (which i'll get from your note) has some 
interesting insights on the same issues."  or some such.

Sound right?

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
12/06/02 07:20 AM

 
        To:     David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
        cc:     "noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, 
"fallside@us.ibm.com" <fallside@us.ibm.com>, "xml-dist-app@w3.org" 
<xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        Subject:        RE: Draft of position on SOAP's use of XML Internal subset
Categories: 
 




<Shrug/>

I thought the IETF RFC had a nice explanation, and was worth showing that
others have concern.  "It makes us uneasy" isn't the strongest way of
puttings things, and I thought including someone else's agreement 
strengthened
the argument.
        /r$
Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 10:13:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT