[standards-jig] Future Client Expectations

Robert Norris rob at cataclysm.cx
Wed Apr 3 05:30:07 UTC 2002


> So my question is, how much would people accept in our new protocol
> extensions?  Can we start to incorporate XPath safely (I doubt it),
> Namespaces (no the server can't handle them well), other things
> (XPointer, XInclude, etc).  Where do we draw the line?  What are our
> current goals for clients?  What are our future goals?  I'm really

My understanding was that one of the strengths of using XML is that a
client only needs to support the features it is interested in.

Say we standardise XYZ that requires XPath. Surely then, only the clients
that are interested in supporting XYZ will need to handle XPath.

Obviously, we should encourage JEP authors to only incorporate "extra"
standards/technologies if absolutely necessary, and not just because
they can.

The core protocol (the one in the IETF submission) doesn't require
anything special, and it can do most of the things that people want to
do.

So, I would say, if you have something that absolutely requires the use
of XPath/XPointer/XFoo, can't do without it, then go for it. If a client
author wants to implement it, then the overhead of implementing (or
finding an existing implementation of) the stuff it requires will go
with it. Such is life.

(And, on the subject of namespaces, perhaps we should encourage more
people to submit JEPs that require correct handling of namespaces in the
server - might give us some motivation to get it fixed ;)

Rob.

-- 
Robert Norris                                       GPG: 1024D/FC18E6C2
Email+Jabber: rob at cataclysm.cx                Web: http://cataclysm.cx/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20020403/f802b8a6/attachment.sig>


More information about the Standards mailing list