- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:36:21 -0500
- To: Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Jan Algermissen writes: > Not sure if this misses the point of you proposal, but it might be agood idea > to also mention that self-descriptiveness of messages is what protects the > sender of a message from an effect of change the receiver might go through. Yes, excellent point. I'll highlight that if we move forward on this. Dan Connolly and I were chatting a few days ago, and he pointed out the relationship of this issue to our work on versioning and evolving languages. I think your comment is another spin on that same issue: one of the reasons receivers change, though not the only reason, is that the expectations for the languages or formats they will be processing evolve, perhaps due to incremental evolution of those languages or perhaps due to a wholesale change of the interface. As you say, to the extent that a received message is self-describing, a receiver is in a better position to notice that it does not have what it's expecting. -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 26 February 2007 14:36:40 UTC