W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2003

RE: [xmlProfiles-29] xml subsetting in IETF XMPP

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:49:07 -0600
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE022DC079@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

Are you suggesting that this is a candidate for the subset 
that represents XML functionality when applied to protocols?

As soon as it quits being general purpose, it starts being 
special purpose, yes?  Then the consensus needed is the 
consensus of protocol developers(?) and not the consensus 
of the entire community of general XML developers and users, 
yes?

If that is the case, does the TAG really need to bless 
that decision or simply recognize it and ensure it is 
documented properly? 

len


From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]

Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM wrote:

> (I still prefer the term "usage convention" to "subset"

I don't.  Let's call a spade a spade.  SOAP/XMLPP have created an 
incompatible subset of XML such that general-purpose XML generators 
cannot reliably be used to generate their messages, and general-purpose 
XML procedssors cannot reliably be used to receive them.  It looks like 
a subset, walks like a subset, quacks like a subset.

If this is going to happen, it should happen only once and the subset 
should be well-defined and based on consensus.  It is indeed instructive 
that the two subsets seem pretty well isomorphic.
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2003 16:49:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:17 GMT