RE: D-AR003.1; wording re transport/transfer

I suggest that if we want to ask the TAG to review something, we better be
very clear about what we are asking them to review and why.  The TAG
frequently decides not to review material unless particular issues are
called out.  Personally, I think if we ask the TAG to review anything, it
should be the web architecture components of the arch doc and not the
requirements doc by itself.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 9:21 AM
> To: Champion, Mike
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: D-AR003.1; wording re transport/transfer
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 11:55:13AM -0400, Champion, Mike wrote:
> > > I just want it to say what we discussed, even though I
> still disagree
> > > with it strongly, and would even more strongly disagree with
> > > the revised
> > > version.
> >
> > Perhaps the best way forward would be for Mark to pay
> careful attention to
> > the language in the actual WSA document as it evolves and
> help us draft
> > language that reflects the concerns of his "constituency"
> rather than asking
> > us to re-hash the requirements document.  In the end, it's
> the WSA spec that
> > people will pay attention to, not the requirements doc.
>
> That's true, it's the architecture document that I'm most concerned
> about.  If it's what we're going to be asking reviewers (read; the
> TAG 8-) to focus on, then I'd be ok with that.  But if we're going to
> ask the TAG to review the requirements document, then I'd request this
> clarification be made.
>
> Thanks.
>
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
> http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2002 12:22:13 UTC