Re: [ws-caf] Issue 7 revisit

[Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>]

Eric,

On the other hand, spelling was all of the original issue.  I have 
updated the comments in Bugzilla[1] to describe the extent of the issue.

As far as the process goes, I am getting rather lost here.  This type of 
problem will remain a rather minor, editorial issue until 
implementations force us to carefully consider the impact of the tiniest 
name change.  If it should not have been opened as an issue for the 
group to consider, fine and we should leave it closed but do the right 
thing (fix the spelling).  If this issue was worth the original 
consideration we gave it, I suggest reopening is the correct way forward.

thanx,
	doug

[1] http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7

On 22-Jan-04 10:31, Newcomer, Eric wrote:

> 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.
>  
> www.arjuna.com
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Mark  <mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com> Little 
> To: Greg Pavlik <mailto:greg.pavlik@oracle.com>  
> Cc: Doug Bunting <mailto:Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>  ; ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org 
> 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.
>  
> www.arjuna.com
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Greg  <mailto:greg.pavlik@oracle.com> Pavlik 
> To: Mark Little <mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com>  
> Cc: Doug Bunting <mailto:Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>  ; ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org 
> 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"  "> <mailto:Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM> <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>
> 
> To:  "> <mailto:ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org> <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.
> 
>       
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
>