[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] PPW letter re CAP
At 8:37 AM -0400 10/9/03, R. Allen Wyke wrote: >Please help me understand how adding this will not break my application? Allen, you're asking me to prove a negative, and on your terms, and with no information. Surely you're not serious. Since you haven't specified how any such a proposal... and we haven't even gotten to discussing a particular proposal yet... breaks anything, or what it breaks, how am I supposed to tell you how to fix it? While you certainly have the authority to confuse "won't" with "can't" within your own company and product, if you choose, I really think you owe the TC a more explicit and reasonable explanation of what the problem is if you expect others to be persuaded. >Bingo! DMIS, through its efforts to implement the spec, took a stab at >implementing it... With that experience behind >us, the TC can not take those valuable comments and lesson's learned and >try to address them in a normative way - probably as an official Note or >maybe another OASIS Standards (something like CAP Over SOAP as you >mention below). So, why is broadcast media not willing to go through >this exercise as well? The TC "can NOT take those valuable comments" [emphasis added]? I'm pretty sure you meant to write "can take those valuable comments...", else I really don't understand what we're doing here. Assuming that, why can't we take the comments from NDSAmerica and PPW and try to address them in a normative way? Should we dismiss their comments because they've been unable to test what we've not yet specified? That seems a bit circular... - Art
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]