struggling with operation and message patterns writeup in spec

I'm struggling with the split between parts 1 & 2 of the spec
for message patterns. In particular, we currently have it so that
part 1 defines <operation> etc. but not any specific patterns. At
the same time, we will clearly not want to use the generic syntax
for the patterns we define (in particular that will require users
to remember pattern URIs which IMO is unacceptable). However, we
can't talk about simplified syntax etc. if the patterns for which
the syntax is being defined is elsewhere. At the same time I don't
like the idea of defining syntactic shortcuts for a fundamental 
thing like <operation>s anywhere but in part 1.

My current thinking is that we should move the description of 
normative patterns to part 1. I volunteer to do the work.

Thoughts welcome.

Sanjiva.

Received on Thursday, 18 September 2003 06:15:19 UTC