Re: [business-transaction] Email vote - Issues 87 and 108 -votingendsTues May 30

[William Cox <william.cox@bea.com>]

As I said in a more long-winded response on bt-spec, this also works for me.
It MUST be revisisted for movement beyond a committee draft, i.e., to an OASIS
specification.

bill cox

William Z Pope wrote:

> Bill,
> Regards the text for Issue 87 I'm glad that this is good enough for the
> committee draft as that's our immediate objective.  The TC will need to
> address the different conformance philosophies reflected in this draft
> and in the descriptions in Issue 26 and 87.  Addressing that after 1.0
> allows us to use feedback from other OASIS members outside the TC as
> well as our own opinions.  That works for me.
>
> =bill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Cox [mailto:william.cox@bea.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:56 PM
> To: zpope@pobox.com
> Cc: OASIS BTP (Main List)
> Subject: Re: [business-transaction] Email vote - Issues 87 and 108 -
> voting endsTues May 30
>
> I vote YES on issue 87, with the following note:  This proposed conformance
> statement is OK for a committee draft, but is not ready for the next stage.
> Specifying "sort of" conformance has no useful place.
>
> I vote YES on issue 108, with the following note:  Text should be added to
> clarify
> that (as in the problem statement) this isn't an issue with Atoms.
>
> bill cox
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

Attachment: william.cox.vcf
Description: Card for William Cox