- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:11:36 -0000
- 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 UTC