W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2001

RE: DR309 -- ongoing discussion

From: Anderson, William L <WAnderson@crt.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:09:10 -0500
Message-ID: <BF85F885643CD21188230008C756293502E1E962@crte128-2.wrc.xerox.com>
To: "'David Ezell'" <David_E3@Verifone.Com>, "Anderson, William L" <WAnderson@crt.xerox.com>
Cc: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Re: wiggle room: well I guess if we need it (and have used it other places)
then use "should," but we're not really saying how well XP is supported on
small devices. Maybe this is our way of saying that these req'ts aren't
really of highest priority. I would prefer to make the req'ts strong and
clear, and then prioritize, but that may not be practicable.

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Ezell [mailto:David_E3@Verifone.Com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 5:02 PM
> To: 'Anderson, William L'
> Cc: 'xml-dist-app@w3.org'
> Subject: RE: DR309 -- ongoing discussion
> 
> 
> On Tue 1/2/2001 4:55 PM -5:00 Bill Anderson wrote:
> 
> >"Following the example of XHTML Basic [1], XML Protocol supports
> >_applications_ that work on resource constrained devices, 
> including devices
> >that do not support the feature set normally associated with 
> XML processing
> >environments."
> 
> Actually, I think we need to stay with either "should work" 
> or "must work"
> for a consistent "requirement look and feel".  "Should" gives us more
> wiggle room.  Thoughts?
> 
> Regards,
> David
> 
Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2001 17:11:03 GMT

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