W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Precise Definition for Interoperability Needed (Was RE: [Minu tes] 6-7 Feb 2003 TAG ftf meeting (why XML))

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:59:09 -0600
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACF02@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]

>With the exception of those things denoted
>RESOLVED: ..., there's no claim that everybody
>agreed, nor that you should feel compelled to
>speak up if you disagree.

Thank you.  That is excellent guidance.

>The relevant text we're seeking consensus on
>is section 3.3.1. When to use XML
>http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/webarch-20030206#format-specs

>Suggestions for improving that text are more
>interesting, at this point, than picking
>up random points out of the context of the meeting.

The only statement I don't understand is:

"Persistence; there is lots of redundancy"

and that only because I don't understand the 
relationship of persistence and redundancy. 

I can't make a suggestion for a change because 
I don't understand the point, so I won't suggest 
one or post an issue.  It may be the kind of text 
that benefits from annotation at a later date; eg, the 
excellent Annotated XML Specification that Tim 
Bray provided for XML 1.0.

>Please direct your suggestions to Chris
>in particular (with copy to www-tag) as
>he has the action to do the next draft for review
>of section 3 on formats.
>http://www.w3.org/2003/02/06-tag-summary#archdoc-cl

Thank you.  That is excellent guidance.

>Ah... I think I follow you now... the meeting
>record suggests Chris is likely to include
>"xml gives interop" in his next draft...

That is what I inferred, correctly or not.

>> o  the term 'interoperability' is vague and 
>> has created misunderstanding in the past; a more 
>> formal definition of the term is needed,
>> 
>> o a formal statement of the relationship of XML 
>> to "interoperability" is needed if the cited text 
>> remains.

>OK, I trust Chris will do what he can to address those
>suggestions in his next draft.

Thanks Dan.

len
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 16:59:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:16 GMT