RE: [DR 203] Lotus "no" (D) vote on 203

I actively support dropping it.

Henrik

> We should specify what goes on the wire, and should ensure that XP is
> suitable for certain purposes.  I don't see how the above 
> proposed req't
> can be meaningfully specified and tested.  First of all, I 
> think the term
> binding here is used to mean binding to programing langs. and object
> systems, which is an inconsistent use of the term wrt the rest of the
> specification.  More fundamentally, I think the requirement specifies
> characteristics of particular bindings, which are beyond the 
> scope of the
> spec.  No matter how good XP is, I can always build a faulty language
> binding for it.
> 
> I think we can and should just drop this one.