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

Re: Comments on XML Protocol Reqs

From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 00:36:57 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20010106003551.009d7990@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
At 01/01/05 14:36 +0100, Hugo Haas wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 20, 2000, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> > > R700b: This seems to be thinking only about indepenent extensions.
> > >      Despite trying hard, in many cases extensions are not
> > > independent.
> > >      It should be possible to express e.g. that the message is
> > >      successful if either extensions A and B OR extensions C and D
> > >      are known. This can not be expressed with a simple mandatory/
> > >      optional distinction.
> > >      The requirement should make clear what combinations are
> > >      needed, and should include combinations as described above.
> >
> > The problem with negotiation is that it can only be done within a
> > context. In other words, in order to negotiate, you need to know what
> > you are negotiating. As the purpose of XP is to *not* know about any
> > particular area (which can be expressed as an XP module) all we need is
> > a single optional/mandatory bit. That allows for any negotiation, logic
> > language or dependency language to be expressed in a layer or layers
> > above (neither of these are described by the charter btw.). That is, by
> > having a single bit XP can support the model you describe but XP doesn't
> > have to define it.
>
>I am not sure that it is really a negotiation problem. I do not see
>much difference between "must deal with A" and "must deal with A or
>B".

I agree with Hugo. I wanted to write that earlier, but didn't
find an easy and short way. Glad to see Hugo cought it.

Regards,   Martin.
Received on Friday, 5 January 2001 11:02:03 GMT

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