W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2000

Re: DR309 -- ongoing discussion

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 22:56:31 -0000
Message-ID: <000f01c071ea$98477640$0400a8c0@develop.com>
To: "David Ezell" <David_E3@Verifone.Com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
+1.

I like this wording and the reference to XHTML Basic, I think it captures
the spirit of this requirement.

Gudge

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Ezell" <David_E3@Verifone.Com>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 9:53 PM
Subject: DR309 -- ongoing discussion


> By vote of the Working Group in Redmond during the December 13-14
> face to face meeting,  I've been asked to revise the wording of
> DR309.
>
> === From the 2000-12-19 XP Requirements WD:
>
> >DR309 Ednote: Pending proposal. Owner: David Ezell
> >
> >In cases where the contract between entities is well known, the use
> >of XP as a protocol to fulfill those application  contracts should
> >allow processing without requiring a complex XML application
> >infrastructure provided the documents  exchanged are well-formed
> >and within the tenets of the XML Infoset.
>
> === Proposed revision:
>
> >DR309
> >
> >Following the example of XHTML Basic [1], XML Protocol should support
> >exchange vocabularies which will work on resource constrained devices,
> >including devices which may not be able to support the full feature set
> >normally associated with XML processing environments.
>
> === Rationale:
>
> The idea of quoting W3C precedent for this idea is new to me, and I'm
> trying to get a feel for community acceptance.  I don't think I've
> changed the basic sense of the requirement.
>
> Specific issues raised at the f2f:
>
> a-- "tenets of the XML Infoset" is not widely understood.
> b-- use scenarios are not easy to imagine.
>
> Other observations:
>
> XHTML Basic (recently a proposed recommendation) is probably a good
> example of where we'd like to head with this requirement [1], and I'm
> floating the idea of referencing it.  From the text:
>
> >HTML 4 is a powerful language for authoring Web content, but its
> >design does not take into consideration issues pertinent to small
> >devices, including the implementation cost (in power, memory, etc.)
> >of the full feature set. Consumer devices with limited resources
> >cannot generally afford to implement the full feature set of HTML 4.
> >Requiring a full-fledged computer for access to the World Wide Web
> >excludes a large portion of the population from consumer device
> >access of online information and services.
>
> Replace "HTML 4" with "XP 1.0" and it's rather close, I think.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xhtml-basic-20001219/
>
> Thanks,
> David Ezell
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 29 December 2000 17:57:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:58 GMT