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

RE: Introductory pipeline prose

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:11:32 -0400
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DA03DBD1A2@HQ-MAIL9.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: "Norman Walsh" <ndw@nwalsh.com>, <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>


> -----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: Thursday, 2011 October 20 8:56
> To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
> Subject: 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?

"a" doesn't usually qualify as a plural-making adjective.

I wouldn't say "my family are related to the ...",
I'd say "my family is related to...."

I wouldn't say "the MOMA's collection are impressive",
I'd say "the MOMA's collection is impressive.

I know British english tends to use the plural verb in more
cases, so perhaps your use is acceptable under such circumstances.

Or how about just "but there are many other specifications...."
or perhaps "but there are many other related specifications...."

> 
> >> 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.

How about (if I understand your meaning):

  The Infoset gave the community a vocabulary for discussing the items
  produced by a parser.  This specification 
  is an attempt to give the community a vocabulary for describing common
  sets of higher level features by
  describing profiles, collecting specific sets of features
  drawn from the family of specifications, and providing names for them.

> 
> 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.

Yes, better.

paul

> 
> >> 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 Thursday, 20 October 2011 14:21:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 20 October 2011 14:21:24 GMT