Re: Introductory pipeline prose

"Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com> writes:
> 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

Right.

>> Recommendation itself, but there are a whole family of additional
>                                     is [or reword sentence]

"whole family" doesn't qualify as a collective noun?

>> 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...?

Better?

  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.

Hmm. Probably not.

>> 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.

Better?

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

>> 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