Re: [wsbpel] BPEL potential issue - no explicit conformance statements

["Yaron Y. Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>]

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.