- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 12:20:14 -0600
- To: "'Chris Lilley'" <chris@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
- Cc: "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>
I could probably make up an explanation based on the relationship of redundant parts to maintenance of systems in which parts fail (logistics 101: PPM and failure modes), but that would have to describe features of XML that enable redundancy in description of content (eg, labeled type by name and/or relationship by position in the tree) or in the XML system itself. It might be a good grad student thesis, but not a short explanation. The author of that statement (whoever it was) should be the one to defend it; otherwise, I agree with you that it should be dropped. len From: Chris Lilley [mailto:chris@w3.org] On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, 10:59:09 PM, Claude wrote: BCLL> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] >>Suggestions for improving that text are more >>interesting, at this point, than picking >>up random points out of the context of the meeting. BCLL> The only statement I don't understand is: BCLL> "Persistence; there is lots of redundancy" BCLL> and that only because I don't understand the BCLL> relationship of persistence and redundancy. In the source of that document is a comment (from me that says much the same thing - no clue what that is supposed to mean. Coments are however not preserved, it seems, in generating the html (which is okay according to the xml spec, but unfortunate). BCLL> I can't make a suggestion for a change because BCLL> I don't understand the point, so I won't suggest BCLL> one or post an issue. It may be the kind of text BCLL> that benefits from annotation at a later date; eg, the BCLL> excellent Annotated XML Specification that Tim BCLL> Bray provided for XML 1.0. I propose that unless someone speaks up and explains, it we just drop that bullet point. -- Chris mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 13:21:06 UTC