RE: Minutes: 29 July 2004 telcon

Sorry for the confusion.  There were two issues under "Glen's property
comments".  I missed the switch in the discussion from one to the other and
thus didn't clearly indicate that the action was for the second.

-----Original Message-----
From: Umit Yalcinalp []
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 3:45 PM
To: Glen Daniels
Cc: Allen Brookes;
Subject: Re: Minutes: 29 July 2004 telcon

Glen Daniels wrote:

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] 














	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 




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.



Well, the way the minutes minutes read is a bit misleading that is why i
wanted the clarification of the minutes. It will be hard to remember what
happened 2 months from now as there are several issues listed in this

Thanks for the clarification, 



Umit Yalcinalp                                  

Consulting Member of Technical Staff


Phone: +1 650 607 6154                          

Email: <> 

Received on Thursday, 29 July 2004 19:01:19 UTC