[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Fwd: Data versioning strategy: address semantic, re lation
Len Bullard writes: > Please elaborate on the shades of gray. I'm a bit worried that our exchange may be going on long enough to be bothersome to other readers of the list, but sure: all I meant by shades of gray is what was captured in my "country code" example. Is that country code in the accept set or not? It's clear that for certain purposes it is completely incompatible. If you try to dial the phone number without the country code, then you will have unaccetable consequences. So, probably it's not in the accept set. Then again, I proposed rules that would make that same country code acceptable for many other important purposes. We're not even going to completely ignore it: we'll save it with the purchase order, pass it on if we relay the order, sign it with a DSIG, maybe even use some default rules for extension content to print it along with the rest of the phone number. So, all I meant by "shades of gray" is that compatibility is in that sense a matter of degree. Some language that provide for extension content also provide default interpretations for that content. Furthermore, many applications that accept extensible languages as input have default rules for processing or manipulating that extension content. Awhile ago I wrote a note on this topic on the TAG mailing list. If you're interested, it's at [1]. There's been sporadic followup discussion but no easy consensus on how to think about these things. By the way, I give in that note my understanding of Tim BL's positions on certain things; I don't think he's confirmed that I understood him correctly, so please don't blame him for things he didn't (necessarily) say. Anyway, if I were another reader of this list I'd probably be anxious to see this bit of the exchange wrap up, so I propose we let it go and give others a chance to chime in. Of course, I'll be glad to keep going if that's for the best. Thanks. Noah [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2007Jun/0092 -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 -------------------------------------- Len Bullard <len.bullard@u...> 12/14/2007 06:03 PM To: noah_mendelsohn@u... cc: Greg Hunt <greg@f...>, xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: Fwd: Data versioning strategy: address semantic, re lationship, and syntactic changes? Please elaborate on the shades of gray. I didn't get that obviously, and apologies to Dave. IMO, there is nothing wrong with the set approach other than it might be insufficiently detailed and in cases where it matters, non-dynamic. I haven't been a subscriber to the TAG list for the last year so I've no currency with respect to the discussions there. For me, this is a partially theoretical discussion in that I consider code versioning a *tools* problem (eg, integration of CVS and Microsoft tools can be strange). On the other hand, the applications of dynamic systems theory to the problem interests me. It is a neat problem and 'tuning' solutions seem to be applicable. len From: noah_mendelsohn@u... [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@u...] Len Bullard writes: > It may be possible to take Noah's sets and combine these into a formula I don't recognize the set formulation as being mine. They are one of the approaches being tried as the TAG works toward a finding on versioning, but of all the TAG members I am probably among the less enthusiastic about the approach, in part because I don't yet see how it deals with the shades of gray that I outlined in my note earlier today. I'm not hard over against the set approach either, just trying to see how it works out. In nay case, I think it was Dave Orchard who advocated the set-based approach on in this xml-dev thread. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 -------------------------------------- This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|