- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 10:33:02 +0200
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- CC: XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Jacek Kopecky wrote: > I think the table without the 'Assumed' and 'mU' columns was > better because rows with Assumed=No are all the same and rows > with mU=Yes are again all the same. So the original table seems > to be more concise and expressing the same information, > therefore better. I tend to agree for "mU"; that's why I did not add it in my first revision of Gudge's table. I respectfully disagree for "Assumed", only if for an education exercise. I think there is general tendency to collapse "Assumed" and "Understood" into one single concept, which we should resist. The aim was also to point out that only 1 row out of 3 are different for "relay" and "next", hence the great similitude. IMO, this was less apparent in Gudge's original table, since there were only 2 rows and 1 was different. Also, see below. > Anyway, by not having Assumed=No row for the Relay role are you > suggesting the interpretation that relay must be assumed by > everybody? Indeed it was my assumption that this role had to be assumed by all nodes, just like "next". Did I read too much into Noah's (et al) proposal? Interestingly, haven't you just given a justification for the extra "Assumed" column? ;-) Jean-Jacques.
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 04:32:31 UTC