>What does the project team think?
From: David RR Webber <[email protected]>
>The solution is NOT to gut the entire thing so that virtually nothing
>of substance or value is being communicated ...
Agreed. What was gutted was the non-architectural content.
As I said, "it needs more fleshing out with new content to be complete"
>... lots of good substance that should go into the Architecture
>document - including the latest work that has come out of
>OASIS in the last few weeks.
Is there a pointer for the OASIS work?
>Notice in an architecture document diagrams are KEY and
>VITAL pieces for people to conceptualize from.
>
>So - my Grinch filter failed on your draft - because it had NO diagrams
>in it!!!
Agreed, pictures are essential to communicating architectural ideas.
I was planning to add pictures and flesh out the document if people responded
positively to the idea of reworking the current document into an architectural
document.
>Anyway - I believe that the input to TA has been done once from
>RegRep - we need to review that - Lisa Carnahan covered this
>for us in San Jose - so I would like to see a review with Lisa as
>team lead (if Lisa can spare us the time at least as reviewer)
>and then put some coordinated effort into this.
How about it Lisa?
>Jeff - your stuff came too far out of left field, Duanes was out of
>right field - we need something in the middle!
I'll read this as a positive expression that we should do something. :)
I am concerned that there might be a perception that all the current document
needs is a few minor edits. I think that we need a deep reworking of the
document to turn it into a real TA doc.
>Trying not to be too grinchy here.
Thanks!
All of us in Whoville are ready to go. :)
--
[email protected] http://sun.com/xml
XML Technology Center http://web.eng/xml
