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

RE: [AMG] Figure 2.1 suggested revision.

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:51:55 -0800
To: <rden@loc.gov>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D01AF4C38@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

The word "user" always tends to mean "human user" which I don't think we
necessarily want this always to be.

Actually, I think the term "XMLP Application" for the set of handlers
associated with an XMLP processor to be ok.

Henrik

>This confusion between service in the abstract and real 
>service is what I think we need to avoid. In the abstract (the 
>old OSI service conventions),  layer N provides "service" to 
>layer N+1.  I think we need to avoid using "service" in that 
>sense. The workshop is about applications. That's what they 
>mean by "services".
>
>I also don't like the use of "client" in this context, because 
>of the confusion with the client/server model.
>
> I suggest "XMLP user".
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2001 20:52:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:59 GMT