Re: Context proposals

I have already suggested some possible improvements at [1]. 
Basically, I like the proposal, but I would be inclined to unify 
the concept of context with that of message parts, if possible.

Also, I think contexts as described by Sanjiva bear some 
ressemblance with what I think Glen and I have in mind for 
features and properties at the abstract level. So, I expect that 
we will be discussing contexts in the context (sic) of the PFTF.

Jean-Jacques.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0064.html

Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> For those of you who didn't hear it on today's call, please review and
> comment upon Paco's fault naming proposal and Sanjiva's context
> proposal.  We plan to discuss these proposals further on our next
> telcon.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 6.  Fault naming.  Paco suggests eliminating fault names [.1].  Some
>     support at [.2].
> 
> [.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0045.html
> [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0047.html
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 7.  Context proposal from Sanjiva [.1].
> 
> [.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0063.html
> 
> 
> 

Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 03:16:02 UTC