- From: Cindy McNally <cindymcnally_6@hotmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:30:43 +0000
- To: bob@freunds.com, plh@w3.org
- Cc: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <BAY117-F33E07C4C662F48AA144AD1A7130@phx.gbl>
Hi Bob, Unfortunately, I cannot attend the call, but hopefully the attached response will be sufficient. Thanks. >From: "Bob Freund" <bob@freunds.com> >To: "Cindy McNally" <cindymcnally_6@hotmail.com>, <plh@w3.org> >CC: <public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org> >Subject: RE: Action Property Issue (Web Services Addressing 1.0 - Metadata) >Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:24:05 -0400 > >Cindy, >From now on, we will be treating this as a formal objection due to the >current phase of this specification. > >Would it be possible for you to issue a proposal for your issue today >before the call scheduled for 16:00 Eastern? >If it would be convenient for you, I would like to invite you to attend >that call so that you may discuss your proposal with the group directly. > >We hope to progress the specification by early July, so we hope that >this can be dealt with expeditiously. >I will separately send an email to Mr. Wolff inviting him to today's >call as well. >Thank you >-bob > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws- > > addressing-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Cindy McNally > > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 4:46 PM > > To: plh@w3.org > > Cc: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org > > Subject: RE: Action Property Issue (Web Services Addressing 1.0 - > > Metadata) > > > > > > 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_hotmailtextl > > ink3 > _________________________________________________________________ Don’t miss your chance to WIN $10,000 and other great prizes from Microsoft Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub0540003042mrt/direct/01/
Attachments
- text/html attachment: response.html
Received on Monday, 18 June 2007 19:31:00 UTC