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

RE: Removal (Time for XMail?)

From: John Evdemon <john.evdemon@xmls.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 21:29:41 -0400
Message-ID: <2E26643EEFEB974F81E01F521FF2BCECDFD017@NEW.xmlsmail.xmls.com>
To: "'orchard@pacificspirit.com'" <orchard@pacificspirit.com>, "'aswartz@swartzfam.com'" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I agree with David's observations regarding PBV and PBR.  PBR introduces
significant design challenges, especially in terms of performance.   PBV can
be enabled via a simple CDATA/base64 encoding.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>
To: 'Aaron Swartz' <aswartz@swartzfam.com>; 'XML-DIST-APP'
<xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Fri Sep 29 18:52:49 2000
Subject: RE: Removal (Time for XMail?)

Ah yes, the advantages and disadvantages of pass by value versus pass by
reference :-)

I would think that pbr makes it harder to keep a distributed system in a
state close to coherency.  Further, there are significant performance,
reliability and scalability issues.

Seems like another interesting requirement to debate, whether or not to
explicitly support remote references.  Obviously references are supported
implicitly via URIs, but should the xml protocol elaborate on this.

I think that version 1.0 of a protocol should do the simplest case first,
that is pass by value.

Cheers,
Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Aaron Swartz
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 2:07 PM
To: XML-DIST-APP
Subject: Re: Removal (Time for XMail?)


Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com> wrote:

> Another benefit of using a request-response approach for email that I
> forgot to mention is that it might give the intended recipient an
> opportunity to say 'unsubscribe me from all future messages' - which is
> what got this thread started in the first place.

Not to mention the ability for the sender to update messages after they've
been sent. How many times have you wanted "unsend" a message? Can't with
SMTP, but if we just emailed URLs back and forth, you could update the
content at the URL before the person you sent it to has downloaded it. This
is, of course, both a benefit and a drawback.

I think this is definitely an interesting area for XML work, and relates to
a lot of stuff I've been working on. Anyone have pointers to people who are
already working on this kind of thing? I'm interested.

--
        Aaron Swartz         |"This information is top security.
<http://swartzfam.com/aaron/>|     When you have read it, destroy yourself."
  <http://www.theinfo.org/>  |             - Marshall McLuhan
Received on Sunday, 1 October 2000 21:29:43 GMT

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