- From: Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:04:24 -0700
- To: "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5AAAA6322448AA41840FC4563A30D6E8439E8A3603@NA-EXMSG-C122.redmond.corp.microsoft>
The proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Mar/0088.html) from IBM is generally good and we suggest the following changes. Here is a summary of the proposed changes - change doc is attached. 1) The proposal for 6730 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Apr/0024.html) generally clears up the notion of extensions. I have reworded all 8 messages to hopefully make more accurate statements about the use of extensions. 2) Some suggested text to clarify the first paragraph in PutResponse. 3) Some suggested text to clarify the first paragraph in Create. --Geoff From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 10:15 PM To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org Subject: proposal for 6594, 672, 6673 Attached is joint proposal for issues 6594, 6672 and 6673 - they all seemed to touch on the same concern. thanks -Doug ______________________________________________________ STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.
Attachments
- application/msword attachment: I6594-6672-6673-prop.doc
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2009 17:05:12 UTC