- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 10:41:58 +0600
- To: "Prasad Yendluri" <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
- Cc: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Liu Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>, "WS-Desc WG \(Public\)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
"Prasad Yendluri" <pyendluri@webmethods.com> writes:
> confusion areas. The intera-port-relationship issue we closed recently by
a
> vote or whatever without addressing the confusion or mystery around that
goes
> against this aim unfortunately, IMHO. I would urge that we try and
clarify
> the text in such places in the spirit of removing the confusion in the
spec
> rather than closing the issues by majority vote to just for the sake of
> addressing it formally. My 2 cents..
>
> Regards, Prasad
I agree that the stmt in the current draft about intra-port
relationships is un-motivated:
<item><p>None of the ports communicate with each other (i.e. the output
of one port is not the input of another).
<issue id="issue-intra-port-relationship" status="closed">
<head>Should intra-port relationships be allowed?</head>
<source>Prasad Yendluri</source>
<p>The above restrictions seems to be unnecessary. What is the
justification?</p>
<resolution><p>Decided to retain this restriction as no one could
figure out what one would want with having this feature. See
Wed PM minutes for June '02 F2F.</p></resolution>
</issue>
</p></item>
We did close this issue, but I personally have no objection to
re-opening it and doing away with this restriction. Basically,
that would amount to not saying anything about intra-port
relationships. IMO that's ok because I personally don't think
many would think about intra-port relationships and hence this
paragraph would only cause confusion.
What does everyone think?
Sanjiva.
Received on Monday, 8 July 2002 00:43:53 UTC