I just sent out the proposal.
Satish Thatte wrote:
>
>
> Speaking for 115, my answer is yes. I will get the proposal out.
>
>
>
> * From: * Diane Jordan [mailto:drj@us. ibm .com]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 04, 2004 2:03 PM
> *To:* Yaron Y. Goland; Satish Thatte
> *Cc:* bpel spec
> *Subject:* issue list clean up - issue 84
>
>
>
>
> As promised/threatened many times, I'm going through the issue list to
> see if there are some candidates for action based on the original text.
>
> issue 84: Submitter's proposal: The BPEL spec be required to explicit
> define all static analysis checks that BPEL's semantics depend on in the
> text of the standard. Add an appendix, much like the existing fault
> summary appendix, that will provide a single checklist of all static
> analysis requirements with a brief description of their function.
>
> Issue 115: Submitter's proposal: Rewrite appendix C to preserve the
> relevant content without external dependencies.
>
> Are these ones where we could ask the TC to vote on the general concept
> and then ask the spec editing team to come up with the actual text
> required?
>
> If so, perhaps you could get proposals to vote out?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards, Diane
> IBM Dynamic e-business Technologies
> drj@us. ibm .com
> (919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile : 919-624-5123
>
