W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2002

RE: [Minutes] 2 Dec 2002 TAG teleconference (New issues: XML subsetting, Binary XML, metadata in URIs)

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 13:26:53 -0800
To: "'Paul Grosso'" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004401c29bdb$de4c7150$d11f11ac@beasys.com>

Paul,

I assert that "a version 2.0 of the XML specification" might include the
notion of subsets of XML 1.x - like excluding DTDs - and additional
specifications in the XML family, like namespaces and infoset.  And thus
looking at profiles of XML are part of the current charter of XML Core.  The
member confidential BEA AC vote[1] made it really clear that in our belief a
"2.0" is directly related to XML-SW - indeed xml-sw should be the basis for
version 2.0.  In the Member Confidential W3C response [2], there was no
clarification suggesting that things like XML-SW are out of scope for 2.0.
And certainly verbal discussions with MichaelSMQ and LiamQ long time ago
supported this notion.  Hence bringing up the XML Profile issue would not be
adding to the scope of XML Core as it already is in scope.

To be really specific, are you asserting that the words "2.0 of the XML
specification" specifically excludes the notion of namespaces, infoset, etc.
being part of a version 2.0 of XML?

This seems like a fairly strange discussion, but perhaps because it seems
really clear to me that xml profiles in scope for Core.

Cheers,
Dave
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2002AprJun/0170.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/05/xml-ap-responses.html#ab2b3b3b9c11

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Paul Grosso
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 12:14 PM
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [Minutes] 2 Dec 2002 TAG teleconference (New issues: XML
> subsetting, Binary XML, metadata in URIs)

<snip/>

> I certainly do not object to the TAG and/or AC recommending that
> certain topics such as this be added to the XML Core's list of
> active tasks.  In fact, I would hope that the XML Core WG is where
> it would be put (though I think the topic could benefit from more
> discussion first--I am not yet convinced that there is widespread
> agreement that it makes sense to subset XML).
>
> paul
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 16:28:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:14 GMT