W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > June 1997

re: Determination of Encoding

From: Murata Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 17:33:13 +0900
Message-Id: <9706190833.AA00403@lute.apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Tim,

>I have hear any convincing argument why the spec should try to clean
>up this mess single-handed, and why it should say one word more than
>it does today.

I think that the role of a standard is:
	a) to clearly define what is a conforming implementation, and
	b) to enture that conforming implementations successfully 
	   interwork.
Although it is useful to show suggestions for implementors, a) and b) 
are the most important.

I do not think the current Part 1 fulfills a) and b).  Let me show 
an example.

Consider a proxy server that performs code conversion without rewritting 
the PI.  Consider a WWW browser or robot that does not understand XML.  
Such browsers or robots certainly exist now and will not disappear in 
the near future.  If they save a transfered XML document in a file, 
the header information will disappear and the PI will remain incorrect.  
Then, an XML parser is likely to fail.

Now that implementations fail to interwork, something should be wrong.  
I would like to know which one is wrong.   The proxy server?  The 
WWW browser or a robot?  The parser?  Is this clear from Part 1?  
Or, is this outside the scope of Part 1?



Makoto
 
Fuji Xerox Information Systems
 
Tel: 044-812-7230   Fax: 044-812-7231
E-mail: murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp
Received on Thursday, 19 June 1997 04:31:29 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:04:41 EDT