Date:         Tue, 9 Jul 2002 12:16:19 +0100
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: several subjects
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]> (message from Theo van Veen on Mon, 24
              Jun 2002 13:22:48 +0200)

> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:22:48 +0200
> From: Theo van Veen <[log in to unmask]>
>
> [snip]
> 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
> interoperability.

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.