[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] BPEL potential issue - no explicit conformance statements
The BPEL specification already has a very clear conformance statement in section 2 where it defines MUST, MAY and SHOULD. In reading the proposed conformance text I don't see anything that isn't redundant with the existing requirements language in the spec. As such I am unclear as to what value the proposed text would add. Thanks, Yaron Tony Fletcher wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > I would like to submit the attached on Conformance. I am sorry to have > only got around recently to waking up to this aspect and doing something > about it, but I have tried to provide some initial text for others to > comment on and knock into shape. My aim is to help produce a complete > and rounded specification and I regard being clear on conformance as an > important part of this. > > > Best Regards, > > Tony / / > > / <http://www.choreology.com/> / > > > > Tony Fletcher > > Technical Advisor > Choreology Ltd. > 68, Lombard Street, London EC3V 9L J UK > > Phone: > > > > +44 (0) 1473 729537 > > Mobile: > > > > +44 (0) 7801 948219/ / > > Fax: > > > > +44 (0) 870 7390077 > > Web: > > > > /www.choreology.com <http://www.choreology.com/> / > > Cohesions™ > > Business transaction management software for application coordination > > Work: tony.fletcher@choreology.com > > Home: amfletcher@iee.org <mailto:amfletcher@iee.org> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]