Re: [DR 300] Requiring XP itself to be layered

• From: Octav Chipara <ochipara@cse.unl.edu>
• Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:14:58 -0600
• To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
• Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.05.10011152312460.5458774-100000@cse.unl.edu>

> DR 300 states:
> "The requirements that XP be ... layered ..."
>  
> whereas the explanatory sentence:
> "In this context, layering refers to both ... etc."
>  
> explains that layering is external to XP itself.

I totally disagree with you ... I think that if we are  going to worry
about layering then it is integral part of XP. If the layering/modularity
would not be part of XP than we should not talk about it... I think you
mistake in assume that layering is external to XP.

- Octav

>  
> I suggest alternative wording:
> "The requirements that XP supports use of layering, and be modular,
> extensible 
> and transport independent imply ... "
>  
> Regards, 
> Yin Leng 
> 

Received on Thursday, 16 November 2000 00:15:01 UTC