Re: in-optional-out? from Sanjiva Weerawarana on 2004-01-27 (www-ws-desc@w3.org from January 2004)

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:58:20 +0600
To: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <029c01c3e4bc$1a26c980$02c8a8c0@watson.ibm.com>

+1

(No, not to the nuisance part but the process part ;-))

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 2:18 AM
Subject: Re: in-optional-out?


> 
> If you want it, write it up and propose it to the group for inclusion.  
> If you can convince enough folks, it'll likely go in.
> 
> out-optional-in is there because I made a nuisance of myself.
> 
> Amy!
> On Jan 26, 2004, at 3:00 PM, David Orchard wrote:
> 
> >
> > There is an out-optional-in but what about in-optional-out?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dave
> >

Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2004 08:25:34 UTC