- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:38:23 -0800
- To: "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> R700b: This seems to be thinking only about indepenent extensions. > Despite trying hard, in many cases extensions are not > independent. > It should be possible to express e.g. that the message is > successful if either extensions A and B OR extensions C and D > are known. This can not be expressed with a simple mandatory/ > optional distinction. > The requirement should make clear what combinations are > needed, and should include combinations as described above. The problem with negotiation is that it can only be done within a context. In other words, in order to negotiate, you need to know what you are negotiating. As the purpose of XP is to *not* know about any particular area (which can be expressed as an XP module) all we need is a single optional/mandatory bit. That allows for any negotiation, logic language or dependency language to be expressed in a layer or layers above (neither of these are described by the charter btw.). That is, by having a single bit XP can support the model you describe but XP doesn't have to define it. > R301: Glad to see that clarity is required for all of the spec, > including normative reference material. > > editorial: > - There should be some explanation of why the Rnnn numbers are > quite disordered. The numbers are quite arbitrary and are just opaque identifiers for book keeping. > - R503: "XML Activities": There is only one XML Activity. right > - DR0053 -> DR053. > - Just after R811: 'two core requirements': this is followed > by three requirements (R806, R808, R802). The presentation > should be improved to make clear that the two are r806 and > r808, and r802 is separate. ok Henrik
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2000 11:39:06 UTC