W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > August 2002

Re: issue 227

From: <jones@research.att.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:33:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200208211533.LAA18110@bual.research.att.com>
To: distobj@acm.org, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: jacek@systinet.com, jones@research.att.com, marc.hadley@sun.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, xmlp-comments@w3.org

My responses below at the left margin ...

	Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:32:29 -0400
	From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
	To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
	Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, "Mark A. Jones" <jones@research.att.com>,
	        jacek@systinet.com, marc.hadley@sun.com, moreau@crf.canon.fr,
	        xmlp-comments@w3.org
	Subject: Re: issue 227

	Hi Stuart,

	On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 10:20:44AM +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote:
	> I think you seek to cease much more ground than you have 'won'. In doing so
	> I think you risk a fragile peace.

	On the contrary, I'm not trying to cease anything.  I'm entirely content
	with the resolution of the issue as minuted at the f2f - just not the
	resolution text, which doesn't accurately reflect that decision.

My initial resolution message was almost verbatim with the minuted
version.  It was in response to Stuart's subsequent request for
clarification that I offered my interpretation of some subtleties
in that minuted/resolution text based on my, perhaps flawed,
recollection of the f2f discussion.  The interpretation of the
minuted/resolution text is what we've been batting around.
I'm reasonably convinced at this point that Mark's interpretation
is the correct one.  In retrospect, I probably should have steered
Stuart's request for clarification to Mark B. sooner.

	> > I thought it was settled too; the application must specify a Web method,
	> > as the proposal clearly stated.  8-/  Are there varying interpretations
	> > of "application" perhaps?  I guess I don't see where the disconnect is in
	> > interpreting the proposal that we voted to adopt, although I do see the
	> > problem with the proposed resolution text.
	> 
	> ...and the proposed resolution text is what started this thread... and the
	> request for clarification came from me, the originator of the issue who was
	> not as it happens Cc'd on the resolution. As to disconnects... there are
	> folks who weren't at the meeting who have an interest in the resolution, and
	> who perhaps have a reasonable expectation that the resolution posted to
	> xmlp-comments is a complete statement of the resolution - without having to
	> trawl through a bunch of unreferenced (by the resolution) material.

	Absolutely, I'm with you there.

My apologies for not cc'ing Stuart -- a definite oversight since I
certainly intended to.

	And while I'm happy that you can live with the resolution text as it
	stands 8-), I cannot.  I will be seeking that the clarification better
	reflect what was decided at the f2f.

	MarkJ - how does that work?  Do we need to raise a new issue since
	Stuart has agreed that to this resolution text?  Or can we reneg? 8-)

If there is general consensus on your interpretation of the f2f
minutes and Stuart can live with it, that's fine with me.

--mark (jones)

Mark A. Jones
AT&T Labs
Shannon Laboratory
Room 2A-02
180 Park Ave.
Florham Park, NJ  07932-0971

email: jones@research.att.com
phone: (973) 360-8326
  fax: (973) 236-6453


	Thanks,

	MB
	-- 
	Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
	Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
	http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2002 11:34:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:27 GMT