Re: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous" definitions]

Two quick questions:

(1) Do people feel that we're converging on language which
addresses both two-party and multi-party interactions?
If not, does that matter?

(2) Are we confident that our definition is robust
enough to be adopted by the choreography folks?

Received on Saturday, 15 March 2003 02:55:43 UTC