RE: Precise Definition for Interoperability Needed (Was RE: [Minu tes] 6-7 Feb 2003 TAG ftf meeting (why XML))

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.


From: Chris Lilley []

On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, 10:59:09 PM, Claude wrote:

BCLL> From: Dan Connolly []
>>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.


Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 13:21:06 UTC