On Aug 24, 2007, at 4:11 AM, Erik Rissanen wrote:
> It might be a good idea if someone who is a native English speaker
> proofreads the docs, but we can wait with that until the end.
I can do this.
> Issue 12, more general conclusions: Bill and I posted a working
> draft about generalized obligations. We have not received much
> feedback on this. I propose that we defer this to post 3.0.
I think this is a good idea. Once delegation is behind us perhaps
their will be greater interest in pursuing this.
> Related to this is the issue about the timing attribute for
> obligations which was proposed by David Chadwick. I put this as a
> feature in the obligation draft. If we defer the obligation draft,
> do we want to include the timing attribute in the 3.0 core? In my
> opinion this depends on what we expect will happen with the
> obligation work. My preference is that we after 3.0 core is done
> quickly complete the obligation work, in which case the timing
> should go there, not in the core now. But if the obligation profile
> will never happen, then we should include the timing attribute in
> the core now.
I believe that it should be incorporated into the Obligations draft,
adding it to the current (highly implementation dependent)
Obligations model doesn't buy much I think.
b
