- From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 18:32:58 -0400
- To: "Umit Yalcinalp" <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>, "Allen Brookes" <abrookes@roguewave.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi Umit: > >11. Other new issues > > - Glen's property comments [.1, .2] > > - Glen's composition model comment [.3] - Don't reopen! > > - Help with unique GED language [.4] > > - Issue 211 resolution clarification [.5] > > - pls review text added for what "required" means [.6] [.1] > ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0319.html> > > [.2] > ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0320.html> > > [.3] > ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0323.html> > > [.4] > ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0328.html> > > [.5] > ><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0331.html> > > [.6] > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jul/0333.html> > > Glen: Required flag on properties makes no sense > > ... must be understood by the runtime anyway. > > Umit: required means that the property needs to be > given a value not > >that it be understood > > ... don't remove now > > Jonathan: we can discuss this next week > > ACTION: editors incorporate "some new text" into > section 2.8.1 of part > >1 > > > This is not what we have agreed to. We have agreed not to do > right now going to last call, and we will deal with this as a > LC issue. I don't think my telephone connection was that bad. ;-) You're thinking of the wrong issue, Umit. The text we agreed to was from my mail at [.2] above, NOT the removal of the required flag on property, which is what you were concerned about. --Glen
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2004 18:33:50 UTC