Re: D-AG0007- reliable, stable, predictably evolvable - v0x1

* Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> [2002-03-25 21:14-0500]
[..]
> > We are used to thinking about individual standards
> > that somehow work together in some products. To quantify and promote
> > interoperable
> > frameworks, and thus complex products, I think it is beneficial to version "
> > a set of standards" (with necessary caveats on backwards compatibility, as
> > you pointed out). 
> > Besides, interoperability/conformance tests can be carried on multiple
> > standards,
> > and on products that implement multiple standards (and multiple versions of
> > each standard too). I am not yet convinced that we should avoid thinking
> > about "set of standards."
> 
> Well, I'm pretty convinced of the opposite.  So we'll have to leave it
> at that until somebody else chimes in. 8-)

I will take the role of "somebody else" by saying that I agree with
Mark.

The Web is a decentralized environment, with lots of technologies
which each exist under different versions working together. People
with different needs are likely to require different solutions, and
should be able to go ahead with them.

Spelling out a set of standards (in the sense of A version x.y + B
version v.w) has some value for application purposes and designing
solutions, and interoperability testing is always a good thing, but I
don't think that it is needed in the context of our architectural
work.

Of course, once we have drawn boxes for identified technologies in the
architecture, we will want to put some Working Group names on them,
but the technologies getting out of those, even if declined in
different versions providing different features, should be usable in
lots of different contexts.  This is why it is important to clearly
define the scope of each of them.

Regards,

Hugo

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092

Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 16:17:40 UTC