[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fwd: Profile Draft Question
[In which an otherwise-vacationing Art does a Bozo No-No by posting back to the Comments list instead of here like he should'a done:]
--- Begin Message ---
- From: "Art Botterell" <abott@so.cccounty.us>
- To: <emergency-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:39:10 -0800
** High Priority ** Rex - In taking a quick first look at the ATIS-TIA comments, I noticed that at some point someone added the following language in section 1.1 Purpose: "A single CAP <alert> MAY be created at message origination with multiple <info> blocks – one <info> block for each disparate exchange partner, as necessary." Where did that come from? (It's in orange, if that's any clue.) I recall us doing quite a bit of work to see if we could avoid that, as it runs counter to the basic interoperability goal of having a single consistent CAP message that can drive all systems. So this would seem to be a departure from the intent of the SC as well as being inconsistent with the data dictionary in section 2. The SC approved a set of tables for referral to the TC, so I assume this may have been simply an editorial cut-and-paste accident. This is an example of why I think we may want to focus as tightly as possible on working through the substantive issues before we add a lot of ancillary text that could create confusion. - Art--- End Message ---
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]