In a previous episode Henrik Nordstrom said...
::
:: Joe Touch wrote:
::
:: > Then we're back to defining 'application' as before :-)
::
:: I'd say definition of 'application' is a non-issue.
::
client application is alright by me.. simply application is not... I
actually don't like application at all. I tend to think of
applications as semantic things (i.e. a specific set of web pages
together with the origin server and user agent constitute a minimal
application).. whereas a client "establishes connections for the
purpose of sending requests"..
:: Is there anyone who can find a ambiguous interpretation of "client
:: application" the context (and audience) of wrec-taxonomy?
this misses the real issue.
The purpose of the taxonomy is to provide a well defined set of
terms.. I think our definition of 'client' is exactly what we
want.. If we won't use it, doesn't it make this whole exercise a
farce? (which some could argue anyhow..)
unless client as given in 2.1 doesn't mean what you want, I think it
should be used to reinforce its meaning. This is (imho) consistent
with Ingrid's request in DC that the NECP folks make sure the language
in the taxonomy is sufficient for NECP.. indeed we need to make sure
it's sufficient for the taxonomy to be internally consistent too.. I
can't think of any other value for a document like this.
Meanwhile, I'm off on holiday.. if it's thanksgiving in your part of
the world: enjoy it!
-P
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:27 MST