Re: [emergency] PPW letter re CAP

[Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>]

At 8:37 AM -0400 10/9/03, R. Allen Wyke wrote:
>Please help me understand how adding this will not break my application?

Allen, you're asking me to prove a negative, and on your terms, and 
with no information.  Surely you're not serious.  Since you haven't 
specified how any such a proposal... and we haven't even gotten to 
discussing a particular proposal yet... breaks anything, or what it 
breaks, how am I supposed to tell you how to fix it?

While you certainly have the authority to confuse "won't" with 
"can't" within your own company and product, if you choose, I really 
think you owe the TC a more explicit and reasonable explanation of 
what the problem is if you expect others to be persuaded.

>Bingo! DMIS, through its efforts to implement the spec, took a stab at
>implementing it... With that experience behind
>us, the TC can not take those valuable comments and lesson's learned and
>try to address them in a normative way - probably as an official Note or
>maybe another OASIS Standards (something like CAP Over SOAP as you
>mention below). So, why is broadcast media not willing to go through
>this exercise as well?

The TC "can NOT take those valuable comments" [emphasis added]?  I'm 
pretty sure you meant to write "can take those valuable comments...", 
else I really don't understand what we're doing here.

Assuming that, why can't we take the comments from NDSAmerica and PPW 
and try to address them in a normative way?  Should we dismiss their 
comments because they've been unable to test what we've not yet 
specified?  That seems a bit circular...

- Art