MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] PPW letter re CAP
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
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]