Re: [emergency] Fwd: Re: [cam] Re: [xml-dev] What do want in a FAQ for a new spec

[R. Allen Wyke <emergency-tc@earthlink.net>]

On Feb 25, 2004, at 4:27 PM, Art Botterell wrote:

> Mindful of Jamie's advice on yesterday's call, I'd like to suggest 
> that we keep our focus on the immediate "fact sheet" project and not 
> get sidetracked just yet on larger and longer-term projects like FAQ's 
> or implementation guides... especially since we have limited time (and 
> a limited number of people offering to do the actual writing work. ;-)

We need to be careful not to confuse a previously assigned SC 
deliverable with a new/current other task. These are not mutually 
exclusive tasks and they should not be considered as such. In fact, 
with some well positioned writing, a lot of the content in a "fact 
sheet" can be used as a starting point for an FAQ and/or an 
implementation guide.

> PS - I think we should be careful how we talk about APIs.  An API 
> describes a particular implementation and frequently requires or 
> implies a particular programming environment.  CAP is a messaging 
> standard, not an application standard.  DMIS has an API, and other 
> systems have their own interfaces, some similar, some different.  But 
> the CAP message itself is not defined by any particular API.  (That's 
> one way, although perhaps not the best, of explaining the phrase 
> "transport agnostic.")

This indirectly made me think of something. Please note that you can 
describe a method of transport, which we need to address, without 
describing an API, which I agree with you - not our focus and is 
usually implementation specific. An exception is the DOM, which does 
define language specific bindings.