RE: 1st draft on primer ignorable

Hi Frederick,

I think what Asir is concerned about is that we have an open issue
(http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4041) and AI on the editors
to get back to the WG with a proposal
(http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/172). We (editors)
generally incorporate the changes after the WG's formal approval when there
is a directly related issue open. We do not incorporate the proposed changes
into the checked in versions. Your proposal is pretty good and I think it
would just go through quickly on the next WG call if we can send it to the
WG by tomorrow. 

Thanks.

Prasad

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hirsch
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 9:15 AM
To: ext Asir Vedamuthu
Cc: Frederick Hirsch; ext Prasad Yendluri; WS-Policy Editors W3C
Subject: Re: 1st draft on primer ignorable


I do not understand why we cannot show progress to date to the TC  
unless there is a serious issue.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia


On Jan 8, 2007, at 11:51 AM, ext Asir Vedamuthu wrote:

>> If we agree on doing this then I will make the
>> changes and this can
>> be included in the red-line Asir generates.
>
> This is not the current practice. Can't think of a reason why this
> proposal needs to be rushed in. BTW, this is the second time we are
> discussing this process question (we discussed a similar process
> question in the last week of Nov 06).
>
> Regards,
>
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> Microsoft Corporation
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick
> Hirsch
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 12:51 PM
> To: ext Prasad Yendluri
> Cc: Frederick Hirsch; WS-Policy Editors W3C
> Subject: Re: 1st draft on primer ignorable
>
>
> Prasad
>
> Thanks for the helpful review, I agree with all your changes and
> suggest we remove the line
> " Providers should not lie and the Ignorable marker allows them to be
> truthful."
>
> I propose we include these changes in the red-line set of documents
> we provide the committee. This lets the  committee see it (as a
> DRAFT) at the F2F and possibly provide constructive feedback.
>
> I understand there was an issue raised by Ashok but believe there was
> strong committee agreement to keep ignorable as we agreed. Thus it
> would make sense to have this text in place. I can remove it if we
> have to.
>
> If we agree on doing this then I will make the changes and this can
> be included in the red-line Asir generates.
>
> Please let me know so I can do this in a timely manner. Asir, does
> this make sense to you?
>
> Thanks
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
> On Jan 5, 2007, at 1:49 PM, ext Prasad Yendluri wrote:
>
>> Hi Frederick,
>>
>> Thanks for doing this. Looks pretty complete to me.
>> I have attached a marked up copy with a few of my comments /  
>> suggested
>> changes.
>>
>> Thanks.
>> Prasad
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick
>> Hirsch
>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:56 AM
>> To: WS-Policy Editors W3C
>> Cc: Hirsch Frederick
>> Subject: 1st draft on primer ignorable
>>
>> Attached is 1st draft on adding ignorable to primer. I think we can
>> do this simply by adding two new sections as noted.
>>
>> Please let me know if you think I should add it in today to get it
>> into the draft for the F2F, or if you have any other suggestion or
>> comment.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> regards, Frederick
>>
>> Frederick Hirsch
>> Nokia
>>
>>
>> <ignorable-proposal-PY.doc>
>
>

Received on Monday, 8 January 2007 17:37:26 UTC