- From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 09:54:10 +0000
- To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Cc: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, "<public-ws-addressing@w3.org>" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
>> 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. > By the way, just to be clear: if we do vote and wsa:Action remains mandatory then I'm happy with that. As far as I'm concerned the issue would be closed and we should move on to other things. I'm assuming that the inverse situation would similarly hold, i.e., if it becomes optional the proponents of mandatory will consider it closed in the spirit of openness and togetherness. (Sorry if that starts to sound a bit like a 60's "love-in", but it's Saturday morning here and I'm suffering a little from the night before!) Mark.
Received on Saturday, 6 November 2004 09:56:15 UTC