[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
That's nuts. They are making life hard/expensive by making
it almost impossible to know which definition is
authoritative for any given transaction, leading
to versioning nightmares, traceability nightmares,
and probable failures. How would both ends keep
up with each other's changes? What kind of optimizations
would one do with a DTD for this level of document
anyway? Are they intending to validate against
your copy or their copy and how does anyone know?
Yikes! Loose coupling or Noose coupling? The
reason for loose coupling is to reduce any and
all negotiations required to enact a transaction.
All they need to know is that the authoritative
DTD was used to validate prior to sending and
they definitely want to reduce the amount of
time and effort spent keeping DTDs stored on
separate sites in sync. Otherwise ye Olde
"control costs more than product" phenomenon
takes over.
I'd be asking for clarification of the optimizations
they are anticipating.
len
From: john Mani [mailto:john@sixthdimension.com]
Thanx, that's my thinking too.
This is their clarification:
----
The reason to have it in your (the vendor's) server was that
potentially you (a vendor) could made modifications (hopefully minor) to
the data type definition for some optimization reason, and when I send a
request I would "read" the most current version of the DTD doc.
----
They want to allow the users of their DTD to make 'minor'
changes, but this looks like opening up a Pandora's box that
their XML processor will have to deal with ..
|
