RE: Comments on XML Protocol Reqs

> R700b: This seems to be thinking only about indepenent extensions.
>      Despite trying hard, in many cases extensions are not 
> independent.
>      It should be possible to express e.g. that the message is
>      successful if either extensions A and B OR extensions C and D
>      are known. This can not be expressed with a simple mandatory/
>      optional distinction.
>      The requirement should make clear what combinations are
>      needed, and should include combinations as described above.

The problem with negotiation is that it can only be done within a
context. In other words, in order to negotiate, you need to know what
you are negotiating. As the purpose of XP is to *not* know about any
particular area (which can be expressed as an XP module) all we need is
a single optional/mandatory bit. That allows for any negotiation, logic
language or dependency language to be expressed in a layer or layers
above (neither of these are described by the charter btw.). That is, by
having a single bit XP can support the model you describe but XP doesn't
have to define it.
 
> R301: Glad to see that clarity is required for all of the spec,
>      including normative reference material.
> 
> editorial:
> - There should be some explanation of why the Rnnn numbers are
>    quite disordered.

The numbers are quite arbitrary and are just opaque identifiers for book
keeping.

> - R503: "XML Activities": There is only one XML Activity.

right

> - DR0053 -> DR053.
> - Just after R811: 'two core requirements': this is followed
>    by three requirements (R806, R808, R802). The presentation
>    should be improved to make clear that the two are r806 and
>    r808, and r802 is separate.

ok

Henrik