[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Masters (was RE: Personal reply)
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, XML DEV <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:27:01 -0600
Communicators negotiate that. We can provide a
means to do that; we can't dictate the results.
Politics is local. Walter is right. But
commitment requires at least two: one to act
and one to verify results of an action. We
don't have to insist that schemas are the
means. We have to insist means exist and that
use of the means have predictable and verifiable
results. So test on receipt or test on transmission.
WAP tests on transmission so WAP agents, by
prearranged agreement don't have to care.
When do you commit and how? That is all
you have to work out.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 2:03 PM
To: XML DEV
Subject: Masters (was RE: Personal reply)
At 01:53 PM 3/12/01 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>`The question is,' said UserAgent, `which is to be master -- that's all.'
Sure thing, Len. But who exactly is to be
master? Senders? Recipients? Customers? Suppliers? Committees?