> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:22:48 +0200
> From: Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>
> Being flexible, not returning an error message and making clear that
> the client cannot rely on sorting is the best we can do to keep
Interesting that people use the word "interoperability" to mean two
diametrically opposed things. Theo's using it here to mean an
arrangement where a system just does the best it can and muddles
through; whereas it also denotes a system with extremely rigorous
semantics, in which a request that can't be honoured precisely MUST be
refused with a clear error.
I think both approaches have much to commend them, and I am not going
to try to argue for one above the other. But I do think it's
important when we discuss possible feature in terms of their effect on
"interoperability" that we know which kind we mean.
/o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> www.miketaylor.org.uk
)_v__/\ "C++ is history repeated as tragedy; Java is history repeated
as farce" -- Scott McKay.