- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 14:20:41 -0500
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, michael.mahan@nokia.com, www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 10:48:29AM -0800, David Orchard wrote: > If the TAG does define the > web architecture, then we can evaluate. If the TAG doesn't define the web > architecture, then there's nothing to evaluate against - so we'd have to > drop the CSFs. But there's an intermediate state there, which would be that the TAG does define Web architecture, just not in time to be of use to us. That's why I think that it doesn't hurt for us to take a stab at it ourselves with Mike's CSFs, because we have a job to do that must continue, even if the TAG doesn't publish a thing. > document. BTW, I consider this a good thing, it's about time there was this > kind of work. We're kind of proceeding stepwise right now, 1 week on > issues, 1 week on documentation. Agreed. > But I also think that it won't cover some of the CSFs that are listed. In > this case, the CSFs would be incorrect Well, I don't believe the TAG should be able to preclude us from accepting Web architectural principles that it isn't able to come to concensus agreement on. Though certainly, it will be more difficult for us to come to concensus on something if the TAG hasn't done so 8-). MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 14:19:09 UTC