Are we getting anywhere? ;-)

[Shawn Steele]

I think I’m hearing 2 basic ideas:  Mapping is really bad some places (Registration), and mapping is required in some others (Browsers).  There’s a disagreement about where the line between the two is, but I think there are valid cases for both.

The current drafts handle “Registration” separately from lookup.  Is there another case besides “lookup” and “registration”?  I think that storage has been mentioned, but I don’t know if that’s similar to registration.

I’d like to propose:
1) Keep the “Registration” section
2) Change “UI” to “Lookup” and make mapping a SHOULD.  Also any mapping MUST use the same tables.
3) Create a 3rd case and make no-mapping a SHOULD.  (storage?)  Any exception doing mapping MUST used the same tables.

There are a few questions that pop up:

• Are there “lookup” cases where mapping is a bad idea?
• If so can those be covered by the 1st or 3rd cases?
• Is there a 3rd case discrete from Registration where mapping isn’t required?

I cannot think of “lookup” cases where mapping is a bad idea, however my brain has melted.

I confess that I do not understand the practical cases, other than registration, where an unmapped 3rd case is interesting.  I get that there’s a conceptual preference for pre-mapped forms, but I don’t know how that can be applied in practice.  Eg: It'd be nice if href's were all pre-mapped, but I don't think it's practical.  I added the 3rd case in case I'm wrong though.

- Shawn

 
http://blogs.msdn.com/shawnste