Re: Agenda of 3 January 2006 TAG teleconference

(not speaking for the CDF WG)

Hi Noah,

On 1/3/06, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> You're probably right.  Then again, I think there's a point of view that
> even when the piece parts are combined by reference, the overall semantic
> of the document results from the combination, just as it does when
> combining by nesting (inclusion).  As I understand it, CDF is on a path to
> saying that event propagation, layout, etc. are essentially the same in
> the two cases.

I don't think that's quite the case.  We've had the discussion, but
haven't made a decision yet AFAIK.

>   That symmetry gives me some pause.

Ditto.  In particular, the security and performance characteristics of
CDR and CDI are *very* different.

> I think both points of view have merit, but perhaps it's worth just a bit
> of discussion before concluding that the CDF 'by reference' work has no
> bearing on the TAG issue.  I'm not quite sure where I personally would
> draw the line.

FWIW, I agree with David that our CDR work has little to do with the
mixedUIXMLNamespace-33 issue.

Cheers,

Mark.
--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com

Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 03:21:18 UTC