- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:59:09 -0600
- To: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] >With the exception of those things denoted >RESOLVED: ..., there's no claim that everybody >agreed, nor that you should feel compelled to >speak up if you disagree. Thank you. That is excellent guidance. >The relevant text we're seeking consensus on >is section 3.3.1. When to use XML >http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/webarch-20030206#format-specs >Suggestions for improving that text are more >interesting, at this point, than picking >up random points out of the context of the meeting. The only statement I don't understand is: "Persistence; there is lots of redundancy" and that only because I don't understand the relationship of persistence and redundancy. I can't make a suggestion for a change because I don't understand the point, so I won't suggest one or post an issue. It may be the kind of text that benefits from annotation at a later date; eg, the excellent Annotated XML Specification that Tim Bray provided for XML 1.0. >Please direct your suggestions to Chris >in particular (with copy to www-tag) as >he has the action to do the next draft for review >of section 3 on formats. >http://www.w3.org/2003/02/06-tag-summary#archdoc-cl Thank you. That is excellent guidance. >Ah... I think I follow you now... the meeting >record suggests Chris is likely to include >"xml gives interop" in his next draft... That is what I inferred, correctly or not. >> o the term 'interoperability' is vague and >> has created misunderstanding in the past; a more >> formal definition of the term is needed, >> >> o a formal statement of the relationship of XML >> to "interoperability" is needed if the cited text >> remains. >OK, I trust Chris will do what he can to address those >suggestions in his next draft. Thanks Dan. len
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 16:59:47 UTC