• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Web Design Principles (was Re: Generality of HTTP)
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 22:34:09 -0500
• In-reply-to: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306DF631E@HQ5>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <2C61CCE8A870D211A523080009B94E4306DF631E@HQ5>

On Monday 28 January 2002 10:23 am, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Urrrrp!  No.  It is the smaller corporations
> who have to be strict because they have a lot
> fewer resources for negotiating out what is
> signal and what is noise.  

If you mean smaller corporations bear the burden of acting "correctly", this is often true. Practically, this means they often foot a large part of the bill for maintenance.

(Seriously, I myself have had to reverse engineer a number of third-party systems because the large vendor didn't act according to specification.... in one case I had to rewrite the large vendors code. Such are the joys of integration.)

> Do I have to rely on their code as the contract
> for all the instances?

For many small EDI players, the answer is a groaned "yes....".

• References:
  • RE: Web Design Principles (was Re: Generality of HTTP)
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: [xml-dev ] There is a m eaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Next by Date: Re: Web Design Principles (was Re: Generality ofHTTP)
• Previous by thread: RE: Web Design Principles (was Re: Generality of HTTP)
• Next by thread: using Schematron for dispatch
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread