- From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:48:48 +0000
- To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
>> It depends on your definition of broken then. I and others would say >> that wsa:Action is broken. I think your definition is: if it's a bug. >> Is that correct? Now that wasn't in the charter, or did I miss it? > > Obviously reasonable people can differ over whether something is broken > or not. Agreed and I hope we can all be reasonable about this. However, there have been a few occasions over the past few days that give me cause for concern, that I infer mean a rubberstamping exercise. Now maybe that's just confusion through the inherent limitations of email and if we were face-to-face things would be different. I'm prepared to give the benefit of the doubt. > My feeling is that given that the charter doesn't say 'Start by taking > equal parts WS-A and WS-MD' that we *are* working on WS-A and that > given > our schedule, fixing things that are broken rather than throwing open > the entire design space is the right way forward. I haven't suggested throwing open the entire spec. And this does come back to definitions of broken. Let's just consider this one issue (mandatory wsa:Action) and not make it a rallying point for a discussion about whether or not this spec needs to be defined from ground up again (I don't want that and I don't think it should be anyway). I think a reasonable compromise in this specific case is to make wsa:Action optional. Anyway, it's hopefully going to be an issue we can vote on and then move on from there. > > I can understand that you feel differently. > Ditto. Mark. ---- Mark Little, Chief Architect, Arjuna Technologies Ltd. www.arjuna.com
Received on Saturday, 6 November 2004 09:50:00 UTC