Disagree – same rationale as my disagreement with
2.1.2.1.1. I believe that communicating information about “better”
choices is important and in scope.
Regards,
Debra
From: Christine
Draper [mailto:cdraper@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006
7:16 PM
To: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [sdd] Requirement 2.1.4.1
All,
On 2.1.4.1 I have a similar issue to 2.1.2.1.1. Prioritization of alternative
configuration is not something that should be mandated by the author of a
particular component, both because of external factors and overall solution
requirements. At most, the author should be able to establish a preference, but
I can't think of a good use case for that which isn't captured by specifying
preferences for the target environment. Can anyone else? If not, I would
propose:
PROPOSED:
2.1.4.1 The SDD specification must support the definition of alternative
configurations.
ORIGINAL:
2.1.4.1 The SDD specification must support the definition of alternative
configuration and identify a default and/or prioritizing of those alternatives.
Regards,
Christine
Senior Technical Staff Member
IBM, 11501 Burnet Road,
Mail Point 901-6B10
Austin, TX
78758
1-512-838-3482 tl 678-3482