Re: [ws-caf-editors] issues 1-7 in draft doc

["Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

I'm happy with ResponseHandler and I don't think we need to put this up for
a re-vote: it's an editorial decision IMO.

Mark.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Pavlik" <greg.pavlik@oracle.com>
To: "ws-caf-editors" <ws-caf-editors@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 2:21 AM
Subject: [ws-caf-editors] issues 1-7 in draft doc


> Gentlemen, resolving issues 1-6 in the WS-Context specification was
> scandalously easy: there were no changes to the text. However, issue 7
> is bothering me. The correct spelling is indeed Respondent. However,
> these porttypes are for receiving responses. Respondent is defined, in
> the American Heritage dictionary as "one who responds". I mentioned this
> to Martin, but not Mark (duh!) before the TC kicked off, and then
> completely forgot about it. So I suggest that we come up with a more
> appropriate term, like ResponseHandler. Any objections?
>
> On a related topic: following Monday, I propose we integrate the model
> directly into the text, start to make sure we have the outline for the
> structure of the text that we deem appropriate, and plan what sequence
> diagrams are required to describe interactions. Since we're aiming for a
> draft to be ready before the next TC, we've got some busy weeks ahead.
>
> Greg
>
>