Re: issue 227

Hi Stuart,

On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 10:20:44AM +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> I think you seek to cease much more ground than you have 'won'. In doing so
> I think you risk a fragile peace.

On the contrary, I'm not trying to cease anything.  I'm entirely content
with the resolution of the issue as minuted at the f2f - just not the
resolution text, which doesn't accurately reflect that decision.

> > I thought it was settled too; the application must specify a Web method,
> > as the proposal clearly stated.  8-/  Are there varying interpretations
> > of "application" perhaps?  I guess I don't see where the disconnect is in
> > interpreting the proposal that we voted to adopt, although I do see the
> > problem with the proposed resolution text.
> 
> ...and the proposed resolution text is what started this thread... and the
> request for clarification came from me, the originator of the issue who was
> not as it happens Cc'd on the resolution. As to disconnects... there are
> folks who weren't at the meeting who have an interest in the resolution, and
> who perhaps have a reasonable expectation that the resolution posted to
> xmlp-comments is a complete statement of the resolution - without having to
> trawl through a bunch of unreferenced (by the resolution) material.

Absolutely, I'm with you there.

And while I'm happy that you can live with the resolution text as it
stands 8-), I cannot.  I will be seeking that the clarification better
reflect what was decided at the f2f.

MarkJ - how does that work?  Do we need to raise a new issue since
Stuart has agreed that to this resolution text?  Or can we reneg? 8-)

Thanks,

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com

Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2002 10:47:51 UTC