RE: [DR 203] Lotus "no" (D) vote on 203

• From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
• Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 16:36:35 -0800
• To: "Noah Mendelsohn" <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <006801c04dd2$f81e9a80$fb4c1fac@redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

I actively support dropping it.

Henrik

> We should specify what goes on the wire, and should ensure that XP is
> suitable for certain purposes.  I don't see how the above 
> proposed req't
> can be meaningfully specified and tested.  First of all, I 
> think the term
> binding here is used to mean binding to programing langs. and object
> systems, which is an inconsistent use of the term wrt the rest of the
> specification.  More fundamentally, I think the requirement specifies
> characteristics of particular bindings, which are beyond the 
> scope of the
> spec.  No matter how good XP is, I can always build a faulty language
> binding for it.
> 
> I think we can and should just drop this one.

Received on Monday, 13 November 2000 19:37:19 UTC