- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 16:58:17 +0100
- To: www-tag@w3.org
On 03/04/07, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote: > > I disagree with that statement. An application can be said to > > 'understand' an instance if the instance contains only elements > > from the schema for which it was designed. > > If by "understand" you mean "fully understand", then sure. I'm talking about software, not people. They blow up | they process. I guess there are no shades of gray. But that's > not a particularly practical definition IME. A decent extensibility > model can provide for *partial* understanding whereby the server can > include extensions which it know may not be understood, and clients > may or may not understand them. This provides for better decoupling > in time - better independent evolution - than a model which relies on > shared schemas. I read that as, it might work, if we're lucky. I mailed Mark off list to see if this was 'dochead' vs 'datahead' perhaps it isn't. I don't know. I don't like writing software that might work if we're lucky. regards... .a dochead. -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2007 15:59:01 UTC