- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 10:27:28 -0700
- To: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: <tomj@macromedia.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
FWIW, my recollection matches Amy's that we agreed to leave @pattern a required attribute. But don't let that stop you from searching the archives! > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Amelia A Lewis > Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 9:08 AM > To: Sanjiva Weerawarana > Cc: tomj@macromedia.com; www-ws-desc@w3.org > Subject: Re: is operation/@pattern optional? > > > Hmmm. > > On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:58:53 +0600 > Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> wrote: > > I make it a point to remember my side of the story ;-) .. so > > are we now at a "he said, she said" case??? If so 2-1, that's > > a *clear* victory I'd say! No hanging chads even. > > No, we're now at a "my recollection of our decisions doesn't match the > specification," which is where we started. I think that, all things > considered, it is up to you (or to Tom, if he feels strongly, or someone > else who feels strongly in favor of making this change to the current > specification as published) to find a record, in the minutes, showing > that this [adjectives suppressed] decision was taken. > > I don't think you can, mind, because I distinctly recall that it was > voted down. I believe that this was going on about the time of the New > York face to face, possibly earlier. But I'm sure that, if you want to > modify the specification, you'll either find minutes to justify it as > editorial, or you'll raise it as an issue. > > :-) > > Amy! > -- > Amelia A. Lewis > Senior Architect > TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. > alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2004 17:27:34 UTC