Re: [Anima] WG input needed: Ben Campbell's question on GRASP (1)

2017-05-31 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 30/05/2017 06:51, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> -7, Grasp Message and Options table: Why "Standards Action"? Would you > >> expect some harm to be done if this were only Spec Required? > > > Personal opinion: I see potential for harm. I could imagine

Re: [Anima] WG input needed: Ben Campbell's question on GRASP (1)

2017-05-29 Thread Ben Campbell
> On May 28, 2017, at 10:59 PM, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > > On 23/05/2017 13:25, Ben Campbell wrote: > ... >> -7, Grasp Message and Options table: Why "Standards Action"? Would you >> expect some harm to be done if this were only Spec Required? > > Personal opinion: I see potential for harm

Re: [Anima] WG input needed: Ben Campbell's question on GRASP (1)

2017-05-29 Thread Michael Richardson
Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> -7, Grasp Message and Options table: Why "Standards Action"? Would you >> expect some harm to be done if this were only Spec Required? > Personal opinion: I see potential for harm. I could imagine that if > GRASP is a success, then with experience we m

[Anima] WG input needed: Ben Campbell's question on GRASP (1)

2017-05-28 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 23/05/2017 13:25, Ben Campbell wrote: ... > -7, Grasp Message and Options table: Why "Standards Action"? Would you > expect some harm to be done if this were only Spec Required? Personal opinion: I see potential for harm. I could imagine that if GRASP is a success, then with experience we might