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

RE: [xmlProfiles-29] TAG recommendation for work on subset of XML 1.1

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 16:52:56 -0800
To: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>, "'Liam Quin'" <liam@w3.org>
Cc: "'Ian B. Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>, "'Paul Grosso'" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>, "'Michael Sperberg-McQueen'" <cmsmcq@w3.org>
Message-ID: <023701c2ccb0$ec822de0$c30ba8c0@beasys.com>

And the W3C membership via the AC must be included in chartering.

Tim does at least speak for me on this.  We were asked whether a
profile/subset was a good or bad techhnical idea, and we gave our opinion.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Tim Bray
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 4:07 PM
> To: Liam Quin
> Cc: Ian B. Jacobs; Paul Grosso; www-tag@w3.org; Michael
> Sperberg-McQueen
> Subject: Re: [xmlProfiles-29] TAG recommendation for work on subset of
> XML 1.1
> Liam Quin wrote:
> >>In short, it appears that a new Recommendation-track document
> >>that defines a subset of XML 1.1 should be developed:
> >>
> >>   * The subset must be backwards compatible with XML 1.1.
> >>   * The subset must define a language that excludes DTD
> >>     declarations.
> >
> > I think that's one possible direction.  Are you saying that the
> > Tag has authority over the XML Core WG to demand that it develop
> > such a profile, even if (for example) it satisfies the SOAP people
> > at the expense of not satisfying others?
> I think I'm speaking for the TAG when I say we claim no such
> authority,
> and that our message was pretty clear on this.
> We were asked to think about XML Profiles/Subsetting and it was our
> conclusion that there are good arguments for work in this area; we
> outlined some thoughts on the technical issues, and that's
> all.  It is
> up to the Core WG, the Co-ordination group, the W3C Team, and perhaps
> other interested parties to decide whether they agree, and if so, who
> should do the work and whether charter revisions are
> required, and  so
> on.  -Tim
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2003 19:55:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:36 UTC