- From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@topologi.com>
- Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:29:35 +1100
- To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > 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. When discussing "interoperability", it might be useful to contrast "guaranteed interoperability" --i.e. where the receiver can always accept the data correctly-- with "robustness" --i.e. where the receiver will always fail if it cannot accept the data correctly--. These are in distinct from "unreliablility". XML has never had guaranteed interoperability but it has had robustness. E.g. an XML processor is not required to parse ISO 8859-1 documents, but is supposed to fail. Some people just need "robustness": for example, people making data available on the WWW in the most convenient form for the sender. Others may need "guaranteed interoperability", but niche-users can get this now by profiling XML. So I suspect the emphasis should be robustness as the bottom line. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
Received on Sunday, 16 February 2003 07:27:56 UTC