- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 08:59:34 -0500
- To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1 to the second comment. w/r/t the first comment, not sure where in the spec this should be placed... Cheers, Chris Doug Davis wrote: > Just a few comments... > ---- > The definition of features should be moved outside of this > document and into the spec itself. To have features mentioned > only w.r.t. bindings and then to say features could include > things like "correlation" which might not have anything to do > with bindings could lead people to assume a link between the > two that does not need to exists. Features (or as I prefer > them to be called "extensions") are not necessarily related > to the binding (could be - but not required). > ---- > "It is up to the communicating nodes to decide how best to > express particular features". > This isn't correct - the binding specification decides how best > to express the features - the communicating nodes decide which > binding to use - but once the binding is picked the nodes > are not free to express features in some random fashion. > ---- > > -Dug > >
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2001 09:03:45 UTC