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

RE: DR309 -- ongoing discussion

From: Anderson, William L <WAnderson@crt.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 16:55:23 -0500
Message-ID: <BF85F885643CD21188230008C756293502E1E960@crte128-2.wrc.xerox.com>
To: "'Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com'" <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, David Ezell <David_E3@Verifone.Com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
How about the following slight revisions on Noah's proposal:

"Following the example of XHTML Basic [1], XML Protocol supports
_applications_ that work on resource constrained devices, including devices
that do not support the feature set normally associated with XML processing
environments."

Rationale: "should support" is a weak statement; "will work" - don't need
future tense; "which may not be able to support" is too wordy, also weak;
"full feature set normally" seems redundant, either "full feature set" or
"feature set normally" is preferable.

Bill Anderson
Xerox Research

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com [mailto:Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 2:49 PM
> To: David Ezell
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: DR309 -- ongoing discussion
> 
> 
> 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."
> 
> Rationale:
> 
> 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 
> appreciated!)
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>      Categories: 
> 
> 
> 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 Tuesday, 2 January 2001 16:57:23 GMT

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