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

RE: Precise Definition for Interoperability Needed (Was RE: [Minutes] 6-7 Feb 2003 TAG ftf meeting (why XML))

From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:48:06 -0800
Message-ID: <B885BEDCB3664E4AB1C72F1D85CB29F804B7C8C9@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>, <chris@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 1:38 PM
> To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> 
> The relevant text we're seeking consensus on is section 
> 3.3.1. When to use XML 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2002/webarch-20030206#format-specs
> 
> Suggestions for improving that text are more interesting, at 
> this point, than picking up random points out of the context 
> of the meeting.
> 
> Please direct your suggestions to Chris
> in particular (with copy to www-tag) as
> he has the action to do the next draft for review of section 
> 3 on formats.
> http://www.w3.org/2003/02/06-tag-summary#archdoc-cl

Before one can suggest modifications to the document there are probably
a few questions that could bear answering first. 

>3.3.1. When to use XML

Who is the audience for this section? Most of the people I know who
interact with XML don't use it on the WWW so this leaves web content
authors, web site owners and potentially the XML web services folks. 

>For example, an audio or video format is unlikely to be well suited to
representation in XML.

So basically the TAG is denouncing activity like MPEG-7's[0]? This would
probably be a good time for the TAG to acknowledge the difference
between UnicodeWithAngleBrackets (XML 1.0 syntax) and XML infosets
especially since the latter is favored in several recent W3C activities.


> 1. Explicit representation of the hierarchical structure 

Agreed. 

> 2. Persistence; there is lots of redundancy 

I have no idea what this means. 

> 3. Facilitates internationalization 

Agreed. 

> 4. Clean error-handling; early detection of errors 

This needs clarification. 

> 5. Mix of structure and text or data content 

Ditto. 

> 6. Composability of multiple namespaces 

Ditto. 

I have a lot more questions but they depend on the answers to the ones
above. This entire section looks like a rough outline that and not
something that is ready for review. 

>3.3.2. XML Namespaces and Namespace Documents

This section only lives up to half of its name. Lots of discussion on
namespace documents but very little on XML namespaces. 


[0] http://www.xml.com/pub/r/1089

-- 
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any
system which depends on human reliability is unreliable.


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. 
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 17:48:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:16 GMT