• To: 'Jonathan Robie' <jonathan.robie@d...>, Mike Champion <mc@x...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Fwd: War of Attrition (was: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial))
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 15:29:05 -0500

I don't see how one can consider a language design that doesn't 
allow extensions if it is to be a living language.  Conformance 
has to be profiled in most cases anyway to enable implementations 
of subsets.  Are you considering it to be a lockstepped monolith?

If we didn't enable slang, Americans would speak English.  That 
would be a disaster for the west coast media.

len

From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@d...]

I agree with this. We are just starting to explore conformance issues 
seriously in the WG, and I do believe that the goal of interoperable 
implementations is essential.

And sometimes tricky. For instance, are vendors allowed to do extensions? 
It's easy to say no, but what if some vendors want to implement updates 
before XQuery has added them to the language - are they really not allowed 
to add updates as an extension? If they *are* allowed to, should we require 
that there be an option that complains about every vendor extension?

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Fwd: War of Attrition (was: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial))
    • From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Fwd: War of Attrition (was: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial))
• Next by Date: RE: Fwd: War of Attrition (was: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial))
• Previous by thread: W3C Schema Question
• Next by thread: RE: Fwd: War of Attrition (was: Underwhelmed (WAS: XOM micro tutorial))
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread