- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 10:50:17 +0200
- To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- CC: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Since the text is in there already, I think we should keep it for this round; but maybe add an ednote indicating that more changes are on the way. What about the following? <ednote> WSDL 1.1 did not provide its own abstract model. The WSD WG has decided to provide an asbtract model for WSDL 1.2; however, the WG has not reached consensus on what that abstract model should look like. This section is an attempt at providing such a model, but as said, it does not represent consensus, and is likely to be revised significantly in the a future revision of this specification. </ednote> Jean-Jacques. Jonathan Marsh wrote: > It was not the intention that we would do any significant work on > abstract components before the first publication. I'm OK with what > you've written as a an indication of where we plan to go, but I hope > it's not so controversial that it delays our publication schedule. > > > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] > > > > I agree I can go back to the "old" version of part1 and update > > it. I personally felt that the "new" version was much clearer > > and much more precise. I would really rather go with that than > > go back to the old version which was quite sloppy at best. > > > > How do others feel??
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 04:51:01 UTC