- From: David Ezell <David_E3@Verifone.Com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 15:56:52 -0500
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:30:55 -0800 Mark Nottingham wrote: >Stability is a laudable goal, but does it really mean anything in the >context of requirements for the specification? Every protocol designer wants >a stable specification, but it's not always possible to determine this >before it's in use for quite some time. Actually, I believe you are somewhat correct; however, you could substitute the word "simplicity" for "stability" in the above remark and it would be equally correct. It might be the view of some people that including sections on "simplicity" and "stability" is somewhat obtuse; who wouldn't want these in a design? That said, calling out both "simplicity" and "stability" is proving useful I think. WRT "stability", it's important to make clear that XP must be much more stable than any given XP application; the requirements document will provide "litmus tests" as we proceed, and I can easily imagine voting against a requirement which, all things being equal, makes XP less stable. Best regards, -David
Received on Sunday, 19 November 2000 15:56:57 UTC