RE: [DR 307] : Complex wording.

WRT why should we care...:
It's important to realize that this requirement 
was introduced as a more palatable (at least to us)
version of the original requirement about 
interoperation without any a priori knowledge.

In trying to capture that requirement, we settled
on the wording below as a more reasonable rendition
of what might actually be possible.  We haven't 
actually felt we could drop the requirement 
entirely, and the spirit of what's below was, 
in our opinion, faithful to the original intent.  

Thanks,
David

-----Original Message-----
From:	Anderson, William L [SMTP:WAnderson@crt.xerox.com]
Sent:	Wednesday, November 15, 2000 2:13 PM
To:	'David Ezell'
Subject:	RE: [DR 307] : Complex wording.

David, thanks for the examples. I think I understand what you're driving at,
but it still seems too general a req't. Why do we care? Can't we just claim
to require a certain kind of network connectivity to support XP Envelope
transport, and let the "entities" that choose to use it construct their own
boundaries?

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Ezell [mailto:David_E3@Verifone.Com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 1:44 PM
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [DR 307] : Complex wording.
> 
> 
> >[DR307]
> > XP MUST be suitable for widespread use across organisational 
> > boundaries
> > in support of the application use cases supplied elsewhere in this
> > document. This implies making the XP specification simple to 
> > understand
> > and to implement correctly (see also DR301, DR301a, DR303).
> > 
> 
> On Wed 11/15/2000 12:07 PM+5:00 William L. Anderson wrote:
> >I don't understand what is meant by "organisational 
> boundaries." Examples,
> >please?
> 
> "organisational boundaries" would be boundaries which exist between
> entities (systems, divisions, companies, countries, clubs, or tribes)
> such that few assumptions can be made about the computational 
> environment
> on the other side (e.g. CORBA, COM, RMI, Java, C-Sharp, C++, 
> whatever).
> "Entities" is a little too broad.
> 
> Other suggestions?
> 
> (N.B. "organisational" should be changed to "organizational".)
> 
> Hope this helps. 
> David  
>

Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2000 15:49:25 UTC