- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 12:22:43 -0800
- To: "Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>, "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
FWIW, given that I don't think in any way we limit ourselves by being crisp in the binding, I would agree with the direction you indicate and share the concern of defining interoperability. I think we have existence proof that attachments can be added in a modular manner. Henrik >Well, if the choice were mine alone I think I would still go with the >tighter definition of our binding. At this point in the WG's >work, I can >compromise in the interest of moving forward. Both positions >have been >clearly stated, and I do see merit in both. I suggest we go with >whichever approach has a preponderance of support, which may >well be the >"looser" one. Of course, if someone else has a lie-down-in-the-road >position either way, that needs to be resolved. I don't, but >my feeling >is moderately strong, but I could well be wrong. > >So I suggest we move ahead.
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 15:22:46 UTC