> Carl,
>> If our tentative agreement on nlo 4 of 4 to keep both text/nameWithLanguage
> and text/nameWithoutLanguage, then we still need the
> "attributes-natural-language" in the response to tell what the implicit
> natural language is for any text/nameWithoutLanguage, correct?
>
I agree.
> On the other hand, if we reverse ourselves and do decide to remove
> text/nameWithoutLanguage, then I agree with you, we can make the
> "attributes-natural-language" in a response, just a MAY. In fact, we could
> go even further to make it a SHOULD NOT. But we don't want to rule it out
> altogether, since there be implementations that are always returning
> text/nameWithLanguage.
>
I agree.
Of course, my preference is still FOR NLO 4 of 4 (eliminate the implicit language forms of 'text' and 'name').
-Carl
"Simplify, simplify, simplify."
--Henry David Thoreau
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate".
(Occam's Razor: "Entities ought not to be multiplied except from necessity".)
-- William of Occam
[Occam is remembered for his use of the principle of parsimony, formulated as "Occam's razor," which enjoined economy in explanation with the axiom "It is vain to do with more what can be done with less."]
> Tom
>> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Carl Kugler [mailto:kugler at us.ibm.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 10:02
> >To: ipp at pwg.org> >Subject: Re: RE: IPP> NLO votes
> >
> >
> >
> >> >Carl and others, including Keith Moore, have tried to express
> >> >that the NL/NLO
> >> >scheme is unduly complex and prone to error. Carl's proposal
> >> >represents a
> >> >simpler scheme where every text and name attribute would have
> >> >an explicit
> >> >natural language thereby simplifying the implementation with
> >> >fewer attribute
> >> >syntax's, and reducing the number of attributes which have
> >> >multiple syntax's -
> >> >all with NO LOSS of functionality.
> >>
> >> Exactly. NLO 4 of 4 proposes exactly that: Drop
> >textWithoutLanguage and
> >> nameWithoutLanguage
> >> and always use textWithLanguage and nameWIthLanguage in requests and
> >> responses. But 4 of 4 (unlike Carl's proposal) does not change the
> >> "attributes-natural-language" Operation attribute in
> >requests and keeps it
> >> in responses as well for compatibility (though its not used).
> >>
> >I disagree strongly with keeping the (unused)
> >"attributes-natural-language" Operation attribute in
> >responses. If it's not necessary let's apply Occam's Razor
> >and get rid of it. Useless appendages just cause confusion
> >for implementors. For example, what value should be sent?
> >How does the client check the received value?
> >
> >I'd go along with leaving it in as a MAY, purely for
> >historical reasons, with a note to the effect that it's there
> >only for compatibility and it is to be ignored.
> >
> > -Carl
> >
> >-----
> >See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/ipp/?start=4717> >--
> >Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/> >
>>
-----
See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/ipp/?start=4795
--
Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/