Alternatively it could be a separate document, referenced from the main document, which could have its own development life cycle. David -----Original Message----- From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 1:51 PM To: Burdett, David Cc: 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: Re: Layers in the WSA (was RE: [Fwd: UN/CEFACT TMG Releases e-Bus ines s Architecture Technical Specification for Public Review]) David et al: I don't know if this would match the convention of our WSA document, but it may be an idea to have the section in the doc describe the functionality of the component, its' interfaces and formal functional constraints, then add a small non-normative section that may discuss any specifications or technologies that could be investigated for use as that component. The downside is that this may age the WSA doc if those specs change. Duane Burdett, David wrote: > I agree, but do we call out a list of specific features anywhere? ... > and if we did, should we say anything about the dependencies between > them (which there surely are) and how they would/could be composed together? >
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2003 17:03:25 UTC