RE: Introductory pipeline prose

I don't have a problem with the general sentiment, but I'm
tripping over some of the wording.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-processing-model-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-xml-
> processing-model-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Norman Walsh
> Sent: Wednesday, 2011 October 19 10:10
> To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Introductory pipeline prose
> 
> Here goes:
> 
> Few specifications are implemented in their entirety, in exactly the
> same way, by every implementor. Many specifications contain optional
> features or areas of acknowledged variation and some implementors
> choose to ignore required features that aren't needed by the community
> they serve, chosing to trade conformance for other benefits.
> 
> In the case of XML, there are exists not only optionality in the XML
                            xxx
> Recommendation itself, but there are a whole family of additional
                                    is [or reword sentence]
> specifications which an implementor may choose to support or ignore.
> In principle, there are an enormous number of possible variations. In
> practice, there are dependencies between the specifications that limit
> the number of possible variations and implementors aren't motivated to
                                   ,
> implement completely arbitrary selections.
> 
> Just as the Infoset gave the community a vocabulary for discussing the
> items produced by a parser, describing profiles, specific sets of
> features drawn from the family of specifications, and providing names
> for them, is an attempt to give the community a vocabulary for
> describing common sets of higher level features.

I can't parse that (non-)sentence, and I'm not sure what you are
trying to say.  What did the Infoset give, and what is an attempt
to give...?

> 
> One goal of this work is to help establish a lower bound on the number
> and nature of features supported. Establishing that we can communicate
> by sending XML documents back and forth is predicated on the notion
> that we have the same understanding of those documents.

I'm not sure I can parse the previous sentence.  Should there
be a comma after "Establishing that"?  If so, we are left with
"we can communicate...is predicated" which doesn't work.  If not,
we've got "Establishing [that we can communicate...] is predicated"
which might be what you are saying, but it might be worth trying
another wording.

> While we might
> wish for the richest possible understanding, that's not likely to be
> supported by the widest range of implementations. Establishing a few
> basic profiles, we hope, provides a foundation on which other
> specifications can build.
> 
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
> 
> --
> Norman Walsh
> Lead Engineer
> MarkLogic Corporation
> Phone: +1 413 624 6676
> www.marklogic.com

Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 15:21:18 UTC