- From: Stumbo, William K <WStumbo@crt.xerox.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:25:02 -0500
- To: "'David Booth'" <dbooth@w3.org>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
- Cc: "Stumbo, William K" <WStumbo@crt.xerox.com>
DR013 -- The WG Specifications must be simple to understand and implement
correctly.
How exactly does one define 'simple to understand'? While I support the
intent of this requirement 'simple to understand' is a hard notion to
measure against. When do we declare success and move on? Can the
requirement be restated: The WG Specification must be unambiguous [I
suspect there are a couple other adjectives we might want to use here] and
correctly implementable.
DR014 -- The WG Specifications must be compatible with existing Web
Infrastructure.
Can this requirement be combined with DR003? DR003 -- Use available XML
technologies when possible.
DR017, DR018, DR102, and DR104 -- I agree with rejecting them. They all
seem like design goals. We might want to store them somewhere and as we
move forward on the design pull them out on occasion and review them along
with the evolving specification. It might be a good litmus test, seeing how
we're doing against a set of goals.
Bill Stumbo
Xerox Research & Technology
Solutions & Services Technology Center
wstumbo@crt.xerox.com
Phone: 585.422.0616
Fax: 585.265.8424
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org]
> Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 1:24 PM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Suggested simplifications to Simplicity Requirements
>
>
> (Resending to public list)
>
> Per my action item, attached are my suggested simplifications to the
> Simplicity Requirements.
>
> Regards,
> David Booth
>
>
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2002 00:25:14 UTC