RE: [tag] Question about TA Set

["Jacques R. Durand" <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

Stephen:

I agree that "set containing set" does not seem to be a major benefit.
But "shared" seems to be more a valuable feature of a set. Implicit TA
parts are to be expected I think.
I do not have strong opinion either way - I see your point. The simpler
the better indeed.

-jacques 

-----Original Message-----
From: stephengreenubl@gmail.com [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com] On
Behalf Of Stephen Green
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 2:48 AM
To: TAG TC
Subject: [tag] Question about TA Set

Since there may be little time now before a potential public review
(should we all agree to have one) for us to discuss outstanding issues,
I thought I'd throw out a major one that has niggled away at me, though
it is a bit radical:

How important to us is it to have the TA Set be able to contain other TA
Sets (and have 'shared' TA Parts)?

It just seems to be something which I'm wary might be a 'white elephant'
in the specs - if nobody implements it and therefore it gets no proof of
concept implementation or focus of effort on improvement and so remains
quite immature... Mightn't it be better to remove it rather than have it
remain unimplemented and relatively unproven?

Best regards

Steve
---
Stephen D Green

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php