Mark,

Please see my comments below.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

xml-dist-app-request@w3.org wrote on 01/15/2003 12:10:13 PM:

>
> Here is another list of requirements following the ARTF (Attachment
> Requirements Task Force) telcon held from 11am-noon EST on Jan. 15,
> 2003.  A couple of former draft requirements have been moved forward
> to "Considerations" instead.  Those requirements marked "DR" have not
> yet been discussed in detail by the task force; those requirements
> marked "R" have achieved consensus within the task force.
>
> Mark A. Jones
> AT&T Labs -- Strategic Standards Division
> Shannon Laboratory
> Room 2A02
> 180 Park Ave.
> Florham Park, NJ  07932-0971
>
> email: jones@research.att.com
> phone: (973) 360-8326
>   fax: (973) 236-6453
>
> ================================================================
>
> Concrete Attachment Feature Requirements
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Considerations
>
> * The specification should not invent a packaging scheme.

Agreed.

 

> * The specification should aid debugging with simple tools.

This has me baffled. What is it that you have in mind in the way
of tools, and more specifically, are you suggesting that the specification
would define said tools or that the specification would define
a concrete binding that had as a design consideration that an implementation
would be inherently debuggable? Further, what manner of "debugging" are
we talking about here?