RE: [DR 309] Vague?

Noah,

The requirement arose in response to some concerns raised on the WG list
(before discussion shifted to this list). The following extract from a
message I sent
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2000Nov/0079.html)
in response to the original comments.

<extract>
The heart of your concern seems to relate most closely to DR306 particularly
in relation to deployment in resource constrained devices where the is
minimal pre-existing XML infrastructure to leverage (basic through to
namespace/schema aware validating XML parsers).

Maybe I can capture your suggestion as:

"DR309: In the presense of a-priori knowledge about the interactions a given
XP implementation and/or XP application will engage in, it SHOULD be
possible to create XP implementations and/or XP applications with minimal
XML infrastructure. The need for *very* simple implementation strategies is
likely to arise in the domain of fixed function embedded devices attached to
the infrastructure.

<extract/>

In terms of answering your question:

> Is the intention to state that schema validation should not be required
when the 
> "contract" is known by other means?  

I thinks that's certainly part of it... but I also think that the original
concern was also centred on primarily resource constrained embedded devices
with much in the way of a generic XML parser. To a certain extent there is a
question about how simple can simple get? In a different life (for me) the
kind of question that has arisen is how do we do this in a watch - at the
time watches were build around 8 bit micro-controllers with 256 bytes (yes
256 bytes - not kbytes) of RAM.

I hope I've managed to add some background to the concern that DR309 is
trying to address.

Regards

Stuart Williams


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com [mailto:Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com]
> Sent: 13 November 2000 23:06
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: [DR 309] Vague?
> 
> 
> The proposed requirement states:
> 
> "In cases where there is prior knowledge of the specific 
> interactions that
> will arise between given XP implementations, it should be possible to
> create implementations supporting these interactions using 
> only a minimal
> amount of XML infrastructure."
> 
> I cannot tell what this really means to say.  Is the 
> intention to state
> that schema validation should not be required when the 
> "contract" is known
> by other means?  If that's what's intended, that's what the 
> proposal should
> say, I think.  Pending an explanation of what is intended, I 
> think that
> this should be dropped.  Thanks.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 
> 1-617-693-4036
> Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2000 02:54:22 UTC