RE: [xml-dev] Re: determining ID-ness in XML

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

A smart system design degrades gracefully. That's just good practice. 
Arguing the customer is stupid is a bad way to create requirements. 
Again, tell your wife she is a result of "worse is better" requirements.

We can argue a scale of reliability, but given that system means 
exist to declare IDs, and that persons are now suggesting a 
different means, unless they are just pursuing their own 
visions, there should be a sensible reason.  XML has built in 
unreliable mechanisms but if we are to preserve unreliability 
as a system feature, we could go away and say done.  It is.
One could say "efficiency realized as a consequence 
of frequency of use of this type of information across 
the system".

Maden and Bray's arguments about "the success of 
the web" are speculation, not fact or requirement-engendering.
We need to avoid that kind of argument. 

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 9:51 AM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Re: determining ID-ness in XML




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]

> 
> ID resolution in this case should be reliable.

Christopher Maden, and Tim Bray (repeatedly!) made the point that the
success of the web was founded on the NON-requirement for reliability.
Indeed, the whole point of the internet itself was to do as well as possible
in a non-reliable networking environment.  I respect the fact that Len
(apparently?) gets paid to build designed-in reliable and secure solutions,
but this cannot IMHO be a requirement for infrastructure such as XML.  I
suspect that Len profoundly disagrees and I'm gonna get my head handed to me

We need a way to define ID-ness that works in an
environment where the supplier and consumer of the XML both agree on the
definition, but that degrades gracefully if one or the other do not.