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

XML profile [was: [Minutes] 16 Dec 2002 TAG teleconf]

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 18:05:09 -0600
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20021216172509.00b8f4e8@172.27.10.30>
To: www-tag@w3.org

At 17:31 2002 12 16 -0500, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:

>           Minutes of 16 Dec 2002 TAG teleconference
>
>
>  2.1 xmlProfiles-29

>   <Ian> PG: xml:id and entities are the 2 things the XML
>   Core WG has told people to do in the internal subset.
>   We can either (1) find a way to get rid of internal
>   subset or (2) find a way to use safely. I have heard a
>   trend to no character entities.

Though I think this was clear in the telcon, to clarify for
those reading the minutes, I was saying that the XML Core WG's
answer to date for people requesting xml:id or wanting 
"character entities" was "declare them in the internal subset."

If we are now going to define a profile without an internal
subset, we appear to have the following choices of responses to 
those wanting ids and/or character entities:

1.  We will invent something to add to the profile that
    addresses the need for ids and character entities.
 or
2.  Use XML 1.0 (and its internal subset) or live without
    ids and character entities.

It has already been suggested that one possible XML profile 
is one without entities at all, suggesting choice 2 for character 
entities.  

There seemed to be no clear tendency yet for the xml:id issue,
but choice 2 is certainly an option, and one that I heard some
folks on the call suggest.


>   <Ian> PC: I am favorable to the idea of creating an
>   XML-SW spec (or something like it). I ack DC's point
>   about cost of profiles.

XML-SW combines XML and Namespaces and the Infoset spec
which led to my following point that I typed into IRC but
never got a chance to discuss in detail:

>   <PGrosso> What is the advantage of combining specs at
>   this point? It's too late to make the spec easier to
>   read for implementors.

My point is that I wonder just what the benefits are of 
combining specs.  Is it just to satisfy our aesthetic senses
that, with the benefit of hindsight, tends to feel that these
specs should have been combined?  Who really benefits?  Do we
really expect such a rewrite to open the flood gates of many 
more XML implementations because so many more people now can
understand things?

My point is that my gut intuition (which may be wrong, but I
have been doing standards for 15 years now and chairing the
XML Core WG for the last 3) tells me that a VERY tightly
scoped XML profile could be developed in 6 months, but adding
the 3-spec combination to the deal turns the time in 18-24 months.
If we're trying to address the XMLP issue, then an 18-24 month 
time frame doesn't make sense to me.  And, it just leads people to 
wonder "why are we waiting 18-24 months for no added features?"


>   <Ian> PG: The XML Core WG should ask the AC to make
>   clearer that we should pursue this (charter language
>   insufficient).

The XML Core WG charter says:

  The WG will also study the advisability of a version 2.0 
  of the XML specification and may undertake the preparation
  of such a specification, if deemed advisable.

What I was saying here is that the XML Core WG has already
said that it feels ambivalent enough about coming out with
another version of XML that it would want clear AC buy in
before embarking on any such effort.  To do that, the scope
needs to be carefully defined and the cost of the effort 
properly estimated in what gets sent to the AC.

paul
Received on Monday, 16 December 2002 19:08:15 GMT

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