RE: client/server model

 From: Doug Schepers [mailto:schepers@w3.org]


> I'm assuming you really meant to say something like, "For the purposes of my
> immediate goal, let's temporarily set aside the details of conformance and
> establish a common annotation processing model".

No. That's not what I meant to say.


> 
> (If it's not obvious, conformance is the whole reason we're talking on this list,
> and why we formed this working group.  ...

No. It's not the WHOLE reason.  It's an important reason but not the WHOLE reason.

 .......If we're not interested in making an
> implementation that's interoperable with other implementations, then
> there's little point in us discussing what an implementation could, would, or
> should do.)

Well Doug, we all contribute to this process differently don't we.  Saying that I'm not particularly interested in conformance is not to belittle its importance and I made that clear in my note.  It's simply that conformance is not my strong point, so let those from the group who are stronger in conformance contribute to conformance, and let me contribute to areas that are more of interest to me. And if everyone contributes according to their strengths and interests, we'll have it all covered.

Ray

Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2015 14:23:50 UTC