W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > October 2011

[closed] Re: Browsers and profiles

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:10:19 -0400
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2mxd5q65g.fsf@nwalsh.com>
At the 13 Oct telcon, we agreed that this issue was closed

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes:
> Perhaps I'm just feeling grumpy today...
> It strikes me that the browser case is the important use case for the
> processor profiles document. Tools built on top of real XML parsers
> can almost all be persuaded to do the modest and/or recommended
> profiles. So there's definitely value in having the document for other
> XML specs, but it probably matters less what it actually says for
> those cases because they're mostly flexible.
> If we accept that browsers aren't going to change, they're never going
> to do the modest or recommended profiles.
> So we've produced a document that recommends the impossible. That
> seems ... unhelpful.
> I have an inflamatory proposal.
> Rename the "recommended" profile to "comprehensive"
> Rename the "basic" profile to "recommended".
> Drop the "modest" profile into the bit bucket.
> So we have minimal, recommended, and comprehensive. Three profiles
> instead of four and better names. The recommended profile doesn't do
> what we might have hoped, but it does what the browsers do (or might
> be persuaded to do) so most folks will think that the browsers are
> doing the recommended thing and that's nice.
> Us old timers who still sometimes use external subsets ought to drag
> our lazy selves into the twenty-first century and just stop.
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 413 624 6676

Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 15:10:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:49 UTC