Re: Non-web protocols (Was: What problems are we trying to solve?)

I agree, though attempting to list everything in scope is a good idea. 

          Mez

Mary Ellen Zurko, STSM, IBM Lotus CTO Office       (t/l 333-6389)
Lotus/WPLC Security Strategy and Patent Innovation Architect




Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> 
Sent by: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
12/07/2006 11:04 PM

To
"Close, Tyler J." <tyler.close@hp.com>
cc
public-wsc-wg@w3.org
Subject
Re: Non-web protocols (Was: What problems are we trying to solve?)







On 2006-12-07 20:15:32 -0600, Close, Tyler J. wrote:

> In the "Out of Scope" section, we've listed non-web user agents
> and non-web protocols, and specifically called out email as out
> of scope. Rather than map out the negative space, can we
> specifically list the user agents and protocols that are in scope
> and say everything else is out of scope?

I guess it might be useful to map out positive space more explicitly
than negative space, but I don't think it'll hurt if there's a bunch
of examples for things that are explicitly out of scope.

Likely candidates for these examples would be things that people
have had questions about...

-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>