- From: Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 18:44:08 -0500
- To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <frystyk@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Henry Lowe" <hlowe@omg.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Henrik, Unless I misunderstand what you are suggesting, I believe this would get into subsetting (which probably doesn't help interoperability). I was looking for a set of criteria by which to judge whether XP meet the goals listed in the original DR305, e.g., if XP can't support signatures, it has to be fixed (same for reliable delivery, etc.). Of course, as I wasn't in Redmond, I don't really know the context in which David was asked to revise DR305. My apologies if I didn't phrase my previous comment clearly. Best regards, Henry ----------------------------------------------------------- At 02:20 PM 01/02/2001 -0800, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: >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 18:44:20 UTC