- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 20:49:20 -0800
- To: XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
One thing that might be a good idea is to migrate "feel-good" requirements like this to a "Guiding Principles" section, rather than making them full requirements. On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 03:56:52PM -0500, David Ezell wrote: > On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:30:55 -0800 Mark Nottingham wrote: > >Stability is a laudable goal, but does it really mean anything in the > >context of requirements for the specification? Every protocol designer wants > >a stable specification, but it's not always possible to determine this > >before it's in use for quite some time. > > Actually, I believe you are somewhat correct; however, you could substitute > the word "simplicity" for "stability" in the above remark and it would > be equally correct. > > It might be the view of some people that including sections on "simplicity" > and "stability" is somewhat obtuse; who wouldn't want these in a design? > > That said, calling out both "simplicity" and "stability" is proving useful > I think. WRT "stability", it's important to make clear that XP must be much > more stable than any given XP application; the requirements document will > provide "litmus tests" as we proceed, and I can easily imagine voting against > a requirement which, all things being equal, makes XP less stable. > > Best regards, > -David -- Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)
Received on Sunday, 19 November 2000 22:51:01 UTC