Subject: re: defaults and indirect references

From: [email-masked] (Reynolds Franklin NRC/Boston)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:20:25 -0500

Logically separating delegation (or indirect references) from defaults
(and the ability to override defaults) is reasonable. But I think
from a practical point of view, they are much more useful if both features
are available. I think that indirect references , without value overriding,
can only be applied to platforms or resources that don't change. Invariant
resources may be a common case but failing to take into account
resources or platforms that can change seems like a mistake.

Default processing without delegation also seems to have marginal
value to me. If there is no delegation then there is only one source for the 
profile. That single source need only send the profile information that it
wants to send. It does not have to send both default profile information
and user modifications to the profile. The difference between defaults
and user modifications never have to be visible. I don't see why we
would need rules for how to describe or override default profile values.

However, if both features exist then we have the situation where both the
user agent platform and some other agency are providing profile data
and they have to be meanfully combined into a single profile.

Franklin Reynolds
Nokia Research Center

---

From: Graham Klyne <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:20:42 +0000

>resources or platforms that can change seems like a mistake.

Oh yes!

I believe that orthogonal design helps to promote the kind of synergistic
application of elements that you are proposing.

>profile.

That term "delegation" again:  I think we have different understandings.
My previous message has failed in this respect.

I think we are assessing the same goals here, but are describing them in
different ways.  I meant "delegation" to mean roughly what you mean by
"default processing".

(I mean "delegation" between feature sets, you mean "delegation" between
systems, I think.  IMO, because we are not dealing with transfer protocols
here, I don't think delegation between systems is a useful concept.  Hence
I have latched onto Bill's "indirect reference", which says simply that
here is a reference to some feature set that is defined in some other place
-- which I think is as close as we can usefully get here to delegation
between systems.)

#g

------------
Graham Klyne
([email-masked])