Re: [ws-caf] Issue 7 revisit

[Greg Pavlik <greg.pavlik@oracle.com>]

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.
      

...