RE: [AMG] Figure 2.1 suggested revision.

Jean-Jacques, John,

I too like the distinction between application and infrastucture
modules/handlers as captured in John's message [1]. Taking this inside the
abstract model would give us more work to do, in that we would have to
articulate that distinction in our glossary through the invention of terms
and then follow through with the knock on effect throughout the document.

My own inclination right now is to stick with the Fig2.1 in the original
draft, simply because there is a level of common understanding of what that
diagram means and we would have to build that up again. If something is an
'easy' change and doesn't look like it will take us down a path that will
unpick what we have I'd be happy to go with it. However, I think at the
moment, worthwhile in the long run though it may be, pushing much on this
one may make it difficult to reach some point of conclusion by the end of
March.

Comments?

Stuart

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Mar/0072.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: 14 March 2001 10:38
> To: john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com
> Cc: Williams Stuart; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (E-mail); Krishna Sankar
> (E-mail); Lynne Thompson (E-mail); Marc Hadley (E-mail); Mark A. Jones
> (E-mail); Martin Gudgin (E-mail); Nick Smilonich (E-mail); 
> Oisin Hurley
> (E-mail); Scott Isaacson (E-mail); Yves Lafon (E-mail);
> 'xml-dist-app@w3.org'
> Subject: Re: [AMG] Figure 2.1 suggested revision.
> 
> 
> John,
> 
> Thanks for expressing this so clearly. This is exactly what I was
> trying to get at.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2001 07:05:46 UTC