W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2001

Re: DR309 -- ongoing discussion

From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:49:15 -0500
To: David Ezell <David_E3@Verifone.Com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD8155A9E.DBB9B964-ON852569C8.006D3540@lotus.com>
I propose the following slight revision:

"Following the example of XHTML Basic [1], XML Protocol should support 
_applications_ 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."


Your proposed revision, interpreted literally, seems to imply that it's 
the vocabularies exchanged, and not XP itself which must be useable in the 
resource constrained environments.  Does the above proposal correctly 
capture the sense that it's the two in combination?  Thanks (and sorry for 
having been out of touch when you sent your earlier private query...much 

Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

David Ezell <David_E3@Verifone.Com>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
12/29/00 04:53 PM

        To:     xml-dist-app@w3.org
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/CAM/Lotus)
        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

=== 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:

>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/

David Ezell
Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2001 14:58:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:11 UTC