[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Visiting your cake and eating it too (was Stupid Question)

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Visiting your cake and eating it too (was Stupid Question)
• From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>
• Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 11:15:24 +0000
• In-reply-to: <3C85E1A6.4CF9CCF3@r...>
• References: <2X3W74B8GAHBN4Z63D8A6KFZIHHGNJ.3c855805@MChamp><200203060138.g261ctu10329@d...><3C85BA20.857FCE4D@r...><001b01c1c4e1$2198c3f0$4bc8a8c0@A...>

At 01:30 06/03/2002 -0800, Ronald Bourret wrote:
>One consequence of the specs not bringing this out is that the software
>implementing those specs is likely not to separate the functions either.
>That is, it is completely reasonable to put all three (or more)
>functions in the same piece of software and let the user decide what
>they want.

This approach leads to interoperability nightmares.

Example:

Three functions A, B, C provided by systems S1 and S2 that are compliant
with standard X.

If support for A, B and C are optional, the interoperability of S1<->S2 
involves
dealing with 3*3 = 9 functionality combinations.

This is made worse by the fact that commercial software vendors will go out
of their way to make it difficult to perform like with like comparisons by
blurring the borders between features A, B and C.

Specs that include "optional" behavior don't help either :-)

Sean

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Visiting your cake and eating it too (was StupidQuestion)
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>

• References:
  • Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserveits "X".)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
  • Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
  • Visiting your cake and eating it too (was Stupid Question)
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
  • Re: Visiting your cake and eating it too (was Stupid Question)
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Next by Date: Re: Visiting your cake and eating it too (was StupidQuestion)
• Previous by thread: Re: Visiting your cake and eating it too (was Stupid Question)
• Next by thread: Re: Visiting your cake and eating it too (was StupidQuestion)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread