W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > November 2000

Re: DR308: stability

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 20:49:20 -0800
To: XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20001119204920.D9209@akamai.com>

One thing that might be a good idea is to migrate "feel-good" requirements
like this to a "Guiding Principles" section, rather than making them full
requirements. 


On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 03:56:52PM -0500, David Ezell wrote:
> 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  

-- 
Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)
Received on Sunday, 19 November 2000 22:51:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:57 GMT