- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:20:05 -0800
- To: "Henry Lowe" <hlowe@omg.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I tend to agree with Henry in that I find it difficult to evaluate this
requirement based on the proposed wording. It might be a better strategy to
turn the requirement up-side-down and say something like this:
It should be possible to write simple, special purpose XP
implementations which only can handle a small predetermined
set of XP modules with potentially a fixed set of parameters.
Henrik
> The revision, IMHO, has gone a bit too far in that it has
> abstracted out all the useful detail for judging whether
> we have met this requirement (when we get down to doing XP
> itself). Sort of like saying I want a restaurant with good
> food without defining "good food" or giving examples of what
> (I think) is good food -- a steak might fill the bill for
> one person, whereas another fancies fresh cod (I sort of like
> fried grasshoppers, once in a while ;-)
Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2001 17:20:38 UTC