[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Re: determining ID-ness in XML
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 10:05:33 -0600
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
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.
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 9:51 AM
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Re: determining ID-ness in XML
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:email@example.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.