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: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:47:06 +0100
Message-ID: <13491866609.20030228194706@w3.org>
To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
CC: www-tag@w3.org, "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>

On Friday, February 28, 2003, 7:20:14 PM, Claude wrote:

BCLL> I could probably make up an explanation based 
BCLL> on the relationship of redundant parts to 
BCLL> maintenance of systems in which parts fail 
BCLL> (logistics 101: PPM and failure modes), 
BCLL> but that would have to describe 
BCLL> features of XML that enable redundancy in 
BCLL> description of content (eg, labeled type 
BCLL> by name and/or relationship by position in 
BCLL> the tree) or in the XML system itself. 
BCLL> It might be a good grad student thesis, 
BCLL> but not a short explanation.

Ok so this is the "why closing tags contain the element name"
argument. That gives me redundancy, of a sort (although content
transfer encodings like XMill then remove that redundancy which could
be a problem on lossy transports).

Still no link with persistence - I am inclined to think that it may
have been a conflation of two ideas, 'brain-faster-than-hands' or just
a simple error.

BCLL> The author of that statement (whoever 
BCLL> it was) should be the one to defend it; otherwise, 
BCLL> I agree with you that it should be dropped.

Good.

-- 
 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 13:47:19 GMT

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