To be
clear on status, 139 is still marked as revolved later, which only get
closed once folded into the spec.
Mark
are you suggesting this has been done and can be
closed?
Martin.
Dear
Mark,
OK
and thanks for the information.
I
would hope that the Chairs and editors (and whole TC if required) will support
the inclusion of some specific text on conformance so that those who read the
spec after us are clear on the various aspects of conformance - I surprised
myself by how much I dug out, I must admit! I am certainly not claiming
it is all correct and word perfect, by the way. I hope people will be
able to comment and help get it right as it is added. But I tried
to provide what might be fairly complete text to make this process as speedy
as possible.
Best
Regards Tony
A M Fletcher
Cohesions (TM)
Choreology Ltd., 68 Lombard Street, London
EC3V 9LJ UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1473
729537 Fax: +44 (0) 870 7390077
Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219
It
was closed earlier this month. I believe the following text was
added:
"One
or more other specifications, such as (but not limited to) WS-CF may reference
the WS-Context specification. The usage of the optional items in WS-Context is
typically determined by the requirements of such as referencing
specification."
but
there was discussion (on the editor's mailing list and telecons) where it was
thought that the specification already made clear that conformance issues
there are. Your text goes a little further than we (the editors) thought
necessary: a conformant implementation MUST support all mandatory items and
MAY support any optional items.
However,
a cursory glance at your text looks like a useful
addition.
Mark.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 2:37
PM
Subject: RE: [ws-caf] WS-Context
potential bug - no explicit conformance statements
Dear Mark,
Sorry, I forgot to check the bug list! - but the
answer is definitely yes!
having now read bug 139 it appears to support my
rationale for fixing, but to have been closed with out giving a rationale
for closing without making any change to the specification (in the bugzilla
text anyway as far as I can currently spot - I am sure that a rational has
been given in some meeting or other). Can you point me to the
rationale for closing without fixing the specification?
Best
Regards,
Tony
|
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 |
Cohesions™ |
Business
transaction management software for application
coordination |
Work: tony.fletcher@choreology.com
|
Home:
amfletcher@iee.org |
Mark.
---- Mark Little, Chief Architect,
Transactions, Arjuna Technologies Ltd. www.arjuna.com
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 1:18
PM
Subject: [ws-caf] WS-Context
potential bug - no explicit conformance statements
Dear
Colleagues,
In response
(well partially, I was thinking of sending this in anyway!) to Martin's
plea for us to look through the WS-Context specification for 'editorials'
I would like to submit the attached on Conformance. I guess this
will be classed as a fairly major editorial. 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 fairly complete 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
|
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 |
Cohesions™ |
Business
transaction management software for application
coordination |
Work: tony.fletcher@choreology.com
|
Home:
amfletcher@iee.org |
|