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

RE: Proposed restatement of syntax-based interoperability princi ple ( was RE: Action item on syntax-based interoperability)

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:11:36 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A078C4@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org, "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>

I just waded through this thread catching-up. 

I'm OK with Dan's suggestion as well. I think it all comes close to
concluding that "message/format syntax and semantics" aid interoperability -
while API's (and API semantics) aid portability. 

[BTW - Protocol in the sense of sequencing constraints applies to both
on-the-wire exchanges and API invocations.]

Cheers,

Stuart
--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com] 
> Sent: 29 October 2003 10:33
> To: Dan Connolly
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org; Champion, Mike
> Subject: Re: Proposed restatement of syntax-based 
> interoperability principle ( was RE: Action item on 
> syntax-based interoperability)
> 
> 
> On Oct 27, 2003, at 2:09 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> > Let's see what happens if I mix that with
> > the text Bray offered Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:26:14 -0700
> > and salt to taste:
> 
> I'm OK with the thrust of Dan's comments.  The last sentence "Web 
> architecture has been successful in focusing on concrete syntax and 
> protocols shared between Agents" is a bit fluffy, being successful in 
> focusing on this well so what.  I'd be OK with a statement that web 
> arch has been successful because of focusing on this stuff, or 
> alternately just a statement of fact that web arch has focused on it. 
> -Tim
> 
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 11:18:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:22 GMT