[xml-h] picking up the thread

[Dave Pawson]

At 10:31 18/01/2003 -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote:

> >
> >If the app can offer more, then we're into USP's.
>
>What are USP's?

Icing on the cake :) Unique selling points, i.e. extra's.




>There are a couple of pieces I'd like to add:
>
>I'd like to be able to create links from content I don't directly
>control.

OK. That's a customer requirement.
Now just what do you want your end customer to get/do/receive when
he/she comes across that link? Why should you make my browser do
something different when it hits one of these pages? Do you have an
agreement with the owner of the page which holds that link?
   Why isn't that defacing this web page?
Lets assume its a page on my website. You ask me, I agree.
So some third party reads my webpage......
   Do they need an agreement with you that they will 'see' this links?
  (I'm presuming you haven't modified my pages directly).
  This is getting complex Simon.
Why do you see added value in this n party agreement to modify what the 
reader see's?





>
>I'd like to be able to create links that have scope over more than a
>single page.

I don't understand that in terms of what a customer is going to get out of 
such a facility?





> >I'd prefer this sort of end user (author and recipient) discussion
> >to preceed the how to do it discourse.
>
>That seems like a good idea, but there are at least two other people
>involved.  For the moment we can discount the programmer, who may or may
>not be an end user.  The other key person is a maintainer, who may or
>may not be the same person as the author.  Maintainers seem to get the
>most pain and the least respect in this business.

Hypothesising. Until we get agreement that this and that and the other features
are wanted (saleable), I don't see that as necessary other than as watching 
briefs?
   Only if it can't be programmed, maintained should we come back to the 
customer
and say sorry, we can't give you what you wanted.

Sound reasonable?

regards DaveP