- From: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:17:47 -0500
- To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
That makes sense. The problem is then that the minutes do not capture the
full extent of the resolution and this lack of accuracy has been propagated
to the issues list.
Paco
"Martin Gudgin"
<mgudgin@microsof To: Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
t.com> cc:
Subject: RE: issue 1 on editor's copy
01/25/2005 10:02
AM
The editors implement whatever's in the issues list as the resolution.
We can't do anything else really, as neither of us is likely to remember
all the resolutions down pat.
Gudge
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
> Francisco Curbera
> Sent: 25 January 2005 13:53
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: issue 1 on editor's copy
>
>
> As per yesterday's call I assumed that all resolutions taken
> at our last
> f2f had been applied to the latest editor's draft. However,
> it seems that
> part of the resolution of issue 1 has not; in particular, we
> decided to
> clean up the spec from all implications that EPRs are
> identifiers; the text
> sprinkled all around (the intro in particular, other places as well)
> stating that EPRs are identifiers had to go. Maybe I
> misunderstood the
> status of the editing work, though.
>
> In this same respect, the minutes of our f2f (1/18) do not
> state this point
> explicitly, which was specifically clarified a couple of
> times right before
> the vote.
>
> Paco
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2005 15:18:36 UTC