- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:08:51 -0500
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) > [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com] > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 12:38 PM > To: Burdett, David; Assaf Arkin; Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org > > However, as illustrated by the "visibility" permathread, I > think that we are going to have a heck of a time reaching > consensus on the guidelines > -- unless we are willing to accept a "consensus" that > includes a strongly dissenting opinion. Remember that it is the WG that has to reach consensus, not everyone on the mailing list. We do our work in public, but that doesn't mean that everyone out there gets a veto. They get to see what the WG is thinking and have their opinion heard. So, I'm not actually seeing much disagreement within the WG on the visibility permathread. Dave Orchard did post something about the importance of visibility a week or so ago, but he hasn't pushed back on my pushback on Mark/Matthew on this topic :-) As for synchronous/asynchronous, I don't think we're all that far apart conceptually. I've lost track of exactly what we're agreeing or disagreeing about in this thread on the use of URIs and GET. I personally think that it's like everything else -- there are desireable and undesireable qualities of GET, and our job is to document them so that actual developers can make rational choices. "Real" architects don't have religious wars over whether to use steel, wood, or stone as universal principles (although some specialize in one or another), they know the costs and benefits of each. A steel/glass cathedral would not be very aesthetically appealing, but a stone office building would be hideously expensive. [BTW, our corporate HQ is built out of wood and stone without steel (above ground, anyway). It's beautiful (IMHO), but allegedly the most expensive office space per square meter in Europe. This apparently was a good tradeoff in the mind of our founder.] Finally, in general, the glossary can include alternate definitions of a slippery term, just like "real" dictionaries do. It's our role to document and organize different opinions and definitions, not to define the "true" meaning if there is no consensus.
Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 14:08:59 UTC