- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 11:02:19 -0600
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > > I'm sorry, I still think this is just giving up and that in fact the > terms have a domain of validity in which they can be > rigorously defined. > Perhaps, and I also find some good food for thought in Suresh's proposal(s). On the other hand, we need to focus on the questions that people are looking for answers to, and I don't think this is one of them. Geoff's rejoinder to my attempt over the weekend to extract a "friendly amendment" was a good one: by getting "rigorous" we start bringing in dependencies on implementation-specific notions such as "communications channel," which then have to be defined. Procedurally, we were at the point of agreeing to whatever way Chris and Geoff came up with of resolving their different perspectives. They have done that, Geoff has accepted some suggested tweaks, and I think it's time incorporate them and look for new fish to fry. Unless there is a substantial body of opinion that says "we MUST resolve this better before we can move on" I'd suggest we move on. Dissenters are welcome to record an issue so that we are more or less required to revisit the matter before leaving Last Call.
Received on Monday, 5 May 2003 13:02:31 UTC