- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 00:22:21 +0600
- To: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi Amy, I wasn't making a serious proposal.. just indicating my current gut feeling. My gut feel gotten a bit stronger since I sent that note however. > I'm rather cautious about this proposal. Would we end up wanting to cut > down on the number of patterns described, or on the detail included, if > we were to combine the two parts? That's a good question too - but I wouldn't want to (and am not trying to) cut down the number of patterns via this direction. I was just saying that if we want to provide simplified syntax for the recognized patterns then its harder to split that kind of fundamental stuff across two documents. > Doesn't having a separate part illustrate more clearly how third parties > may define new patterns than inline definitions would? Yes it certainly does. Again, a good question and I'm not certain right now how best to optimize both concerns. Sanjiva.
Received on Friday, 19 September 2003 14:25:59 UTC