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

Re: [DR 309] Vague?

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@allaire.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 00:21:15 -0500
Message-ID: <017f01c04ec3$e0f7cf60$0b00a8c0@gamebox>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I believe this might also impact a potential DR612 use-case which I sent to
the wg list (included below) earlier.  If a script-based application running
in a browser without a built-in XML parser receives a response, it might be
nice to get relevant data from the response with simple pattern-matching
instead of full-bore XML processing.

I like Stuart's proposed rewording.

--Glen

<use-case>
We have a browser-based content management system, implemented primarily in
Javascript/DHTML.  The system is designed to allow users to restructure,
edit, and deploy content on a web site, and it uses the browser as its front
end to maximize availability without the need for downloading extra client
software.  The designers of the system would like to allow content to be
managed by both the browser clients *and* automated syndication software
inside partner enterprise who share content with our business.  As such,
they have created a single XP interface to be used by all remote clients.
Hence, it is necessary for a stock installation of IE5.0, say, to be able to
invoke XP services using only the tools available in the browser
(Javascript, hidden windows, etc) without downloading any ActiveX or Java
components.
</use-case>

----- Original Message -----
From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 2:54 AM
Subject: RE: [DR 309] Vague?


> Noah,
>
> The requirement arose in response to some concerns raised on the WG list
> (before discussion shifted to this list). The following extract from a
> message I sent
>
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2000Nov/0079.html)
> in response to the original comments.
>
> <extract>
> The heart of your concern seems to relate most closely to DR306
particularly
> in relation to deployment in resource constrained devices where the is
> minimal pre-existing XML infrastructure to leverage (basic through to
> namespace/schema aware validating XML parsers).
>
> Maybe I can capture your suggestion as:
>
> "DR309: In the presense of a-priori knowledge about the interactions a
given
> XP implementation and/or XP application will engage in, it SHOULD be
> possible to create XP implementations and/or XP applications with minimal
> XML infrastructure. The need for *very* simple implementation strategies
is
> likely to arise in the domain of fixed function embedded devices attached
to
> the infrastructure.
>
> <extract/>
>
> In terms of answering your question:
>
> > Is the intention to state that schema validation should not be required
> when the
> > "contract" is known by other means?
>
> I thinks that's certainly part of it... but I also think that the original
> concern was also centred on primarily resource constrained embedded
devices
> with much in the way of a generic XML parser. To a certain extent there is
a
> question about how simple can simple get? In a different life (for me) the
> kind of question that has arisen is how do we do this in a watch - at the
> time watches were build around 8 bit micro-controllers with 256 bytes (yes
> 256 bytes - not kbytes) of RAM.
>
> I hope I've managed to add some background to the concern that DR309 is
> trying to address.
>
> Regards
>
> Stuart Williams
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com [mailto:Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com]
> > Sent: 13 November 2000 23:06
> > To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > Subject: [DR 309] Vague?
> >
> >
> > The proposed requirement states:
> >
> > "In cases where there is prior knowledge of the specific
> > interactions that
> > will arise between given XP implementations, it should be possible to
> > create implementations supporting these interactions using
> > only a minimal
> > amount of XML infrastructure."
> >
> > I cannot tell what this really means to say.  Is the
> > intention to state
> > that schema validation should not be required when the
> > "contract" is known
> > by other means?  If that's what's intended, that's what the
> > proposal should
> > say, I think.  Pending an explanation of what is intended, I
> > think that
> > this should be dropped.  Thanks.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice:
> > 1-617-693-4036
> > Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> > One Rogers Street
> > Cambridge, MA 02142
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2000 00:23:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:57 GMT