[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [uddi-spec] Erratum an error?
Good. I had thought the issue was put to bed, but when I saw messages about adding errata to the v2 spec *after* the call I was worried that I had missed something. I think your plans for looking at version 3 make much more sense. Version 2 should be left alone at this point. I am in total agreement with the that statement made by William Cox ("it speaks ill of the stability intended for OASIS Committee Specifications to move these forward and then make such changes"). But since it seems that the consensus is to leave these v2 alone I am satisfied. I wish I could be in Philadelphia for the meeting. Sounds like a lot is on the plate and a lot of work will be completed (or at least started). -Arle Von Riegen, Claus <claus.von.riegen@sap.com> scripsit > Arle, > > Later in our conference call, there was a vote on the proposal to drop the > idea of introducing UTF-16 support in UDDI Verions 2. There were no > objections, which means that we do not plan to introduce UTF-16 to UDDI > Version 2 any longer. > > In order to discuss the consequences for UTF-16 support in UDDI Version 3, I > will create a specification change request and distribute it before the F2F in > Philadelphia. > > Best regards, > Claus
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC