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

RE: DR309 -- resolution

From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:23:26 -0500
To: "Anderson, William L" <WAnderson@crt.xerox.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1A641E68.F46E7EA2-ON852569CA.005A89F1@lotus.com>
Given the fact that we have not yet had detailed discussions of the issues 
surrounding resource constrained devices, I think Bill's proposed wording 
is good.  When we eventually have those detailed discussions, we may wish 
to go back and clarify the requirement as well as the proposed solutions. 
Thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------







"Anderson, William L" <WAnderson@crt.xerox.com>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
01/04/01 11:14 AM

 
        To:     "'David Ezell'" <David_E3@Verifone.Com>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" 
<xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/CAM/Lotus)
        Subject:        RE: DR309 -- resolution



     Categories: 


David, well that's pretty crisp. But I have 1 small change:

=== Proposed revision:
R309

XML Protocol should support applications that operate on resource
constrained devices.

=== Rationale:
future tense is weak and doesn't add any value.

Bill A

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Ezell [mailto:David_E3@Verifone.Com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:47 AM
> To: 'xml-dist-app@w3.org'
> Subject: DR309 -- resolution
> 
> 
> The XML Protocol WG decided on 2000-01-03 to simplify 
> requirement 309 [1] and
> include it in the requirements document working draft [2] 
> (comments period
> through Jan 12) [3].
> 
> === Proposed revision:
> 
> >R309
> >
> >XML Protocol should support applications which will operate 
> on resource 
> >constrained devices.
> 
> === Rationale:
> 
> Reference to XHTML proved to be too controversial or 
> misunderstood (if 
> a few people went and skimmed the spec as a result of the 
> discussion, I
> guess it was worth the trouble.)  Other references, such as to XML 
> Infoset, were deemed possibly too constraining.
> 
> Best Regards,
> David Ezell
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0266.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xp-reqs-20001219/
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0210.html
> 
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2001 11:33:14 GMT

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