OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-caf message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [ws-caf] Issue 7 revisit


This seems like a spelling or usage fix to me, not necessary to repoen the issue to fix it, unless there is some proposal to change more than the name.
 
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 10:23 AM
To: ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Doug Bunting
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Issue 7 revisit

Are we going to re-open this issue?
 
Mark.
 
----
Mark Little,
Chief Architect, Transactions,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Issue 7 revisit

That depends what you mean by reviewing of port types. If you mean checking them for English/US-English spelling then that's something that could be done by running them through a spell-checker. I'm not going to volunteer for that ;-) But it could be a single issue.
 
If you mean a wholesale change to names, then that should be separate issues, as each may need to be argued differently.
 
Mark.
 
----
Mark Little,
Chief Architect, Transactions,
Arjuna Technologies Ltd.
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Issue 7 revisit

In this case, it's a typo fix to get the XML in a consumable state. Does reviewing the names of port types fall under this or a separate issue? I think this is something that might be helpful.

Mark Little wrote:
Doug, I'm happy to re-open the issue (which isn't actually closed yet until
I get the updates from Simeon). However, I presume it's down to the TC to
agree to re-open it.

Mark.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Bunting" <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>
To: <ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Minutes Confcall January 19


  
All,

My apologies for missing the call yesterday due to the holiday.

Did the group agree to Mark's proposed resolution for issue 7 without
modification?  That is, are we going with "Respondant"?  Agreement on
this issue implies the group is not paying attention because
"respondant" is not in the dictionaries I have checked, even as a
British spelling.  "Respondent" seems to be the correct word though its
meaning involves a legal nuance (being a defendant) irrelevant to our
    
usage.
  
thanx,
doug

On 20-Jan-04 07:01, Guy Pardon wrote:

    
Below are the meetings I recorded. Due to the interference on the line I
am not sure if I got everything right.
Please send your comments to me if you have any.

Guy
      
...

    
Next item: issues resolution
Martin: The only way to make progress is by going over issues and
resolve them before moving on.
Did everyone get a chance to read the issues? Silence. Any motions?
Remark: In most cases they appear typos or editorial fixes.

Motion to adopt them (issues 1-11) by Greg. Anybody seconding? Yes:
      
Simeon.
  
Any discussions? No. Objections? No. Motion approved.

Simeon still has to do an update.
      
...


    

  


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]