Re: [sca-j] [ISSUE 148] Java CAA missing full definition of annotationsapplying to Java Interfaces - Updated Proposal

[Simon Nash <oasis@cjnash.com>]

I found the correct section 12 words and I think they are consistent
with Mike's proposed words for section 3.  Apologies that I couldn't
do this quite quickly enough on the call.

   Simon

Mike Edwards wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Following yesterday's discussion of Issue 148, here is an updated 
> proposal that goes along the lines suggested by
> Anish - ie 3 normative statements which outlaw the use of specific 
> annotations for interfaces and for implementation
> classes.
> 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/31973/sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev3_Issue148_2.pdf 
> 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-j/download.php/31972/sca-javacaa-1.1-spec-cd02-rev3_Issue148_2.doc 
> 
> 
> Yours,  Mike.
> 
> Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
> Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
> IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
> Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
> Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> /
> /
> 
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>