- From: Cindy McNally <cindymcnally_6@hotmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:46:01 +0000
- To: plh@w3.org
- Cc: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
Philippe, I believe that this is a substantive issue that should be reconsidered. I will post a follow-up citing technical arguments and a proposed change. Please note that two related issues were never formally addressed by the group: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Jan/0027.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/0036.html Also, from a procedural standpoint, should my follow-up be worded as a 'formal objection' or would that occur after reconsideration by the workgroup, i.e. assuming the issue is closed again with no action? >From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> >To: cindymcnally_6@hotmail.com >CC: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org >Subject: RE: Action Property Issue (Web Services Addressing 1.0 - Metadata) >Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:09:55 +0000 > >Cindy, > >the Web Services Addressing Working Group would like to move Web >Services Addressing 1.0 - Metadata to Candidate Recommendation. Since >the Group decided, after due considerations, to close your issue with no >action [1], we'd like to hear from you and know if you're ok with us >moving forward or if you would like the Group to reconsider it. We'd >appreciate if you can tell us your position asap. Failing to hear from >you by June 21, we would request the Director to move forward, > >Thank you, > >Philippe > >[1] >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2007Jun/0000.html > > _________________________________________________________________ Who's that on the Red Carpet? Play & win glamorous prizes. http://club.live.com/red_carpet_reveal.aspx?icid=REDCARPET_hotmailtextlink3
Received on Monday, 18 June 2007 14:46:13 UTC