RE: 1st draft on primer ignorable

I am sure that the wg may have more comments on the proposal anyway. 

I am inclined to  send sth to the wg sooner than later, so we can get
more constructive comments when there are no glaring issues. 

My two cents, 

--umit
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Prasad Yendluri
> Sent: Monday, Jan 08, 2007 10:11 AM
> To: Frederick Hirsch; ext Asir Vedamuthu
> Cc: WS-Policy Editors W3C
> Subject: RE: 1st draft on primer ignorable
> 
> 
> AI 172 was on the editors to send a proposal. I take you 
> would want send
> this proposal against that AI. Since we discussed this in the editors
> already, it would be good to send the refined proposal. I 
> think Asir said,
> he plans to review, not sure if he can do it in time for 
> tomorrow? Since
> there is no LC or other impending deadline we don't need to 
> rush I think.
> 
> Thanks,
> Prasad
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederick Hirsch [mailto:frederick.hirsch@nokia.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 10:01 AM
> To: ext Prasad Yendluri
> Cc: Frederick Hirsch; ext Asir Vedamuthu; WS-Policy Editors W3C
> Subject: Re: 1st draft on primer ignorable
> 
> So shall I send the revised proposal to the TC list, and allow  
> comment from work group? Perhaps I should send as my 
> proposal, rather  
> than from Editors?
> 
> My concern is making effective use of the F2F time.
> 
> regards, Frederick
> 
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
> 
> 
> On Jan 8, 2007, at 12:37 PM, ext Prasad Yendluri wrote:
> 
> > 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 19:38:01 UTC