Re: XML Core WG Status and Open Actions as of 2010 December 20

Grosso, Paul scripsit:

> Norm said the TAG was going to start a taskforce that Norm
> will chair to look into "reconciling XML and HTML".  It will 
> include Norm, James, Mike Champion, Henri Sivonen from HTML,
> and JohnC wants to be included.

The mailing list is set up at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-xml ; as the name
indicates, anyone can participate.  However, it's not clear what the
TF objectives are yet, so I'd like to make sure that the Core WG can do
MicroXML or something like it by adding language such as "consider the
development of a standardized subset of XML for use cases where full
XML is inappropriate."

> We have been asked to review the XML Processing Model WG's
> Last Call Working Draft of "XML processor profiles" at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-xml-proc-profiles-20101130/
> 
> Glenn wanted to see some rationale/use case for moving from
> one profile to the next.
> 
> ACTION to Glenn:  Send your request for rationales to the
> xproc comments list: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
> 
> ACTION to John:  Review the Last Call Working Draft 
> of "XML processor profiles" at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-xml-proc-profiles-20101130/

I'm happy with this.  I think the profile labels are just "logical"
labels providing a packaged set of capabilities, and you choose your
profile depending on what capabilities (xml:id, external DTD, XInclude)
you need, so I don't think use cases as such are necessary.  (Glen may
feel differently, of course.)

-- 
Let's face it: software is crap. Feature-laden and bloated, written under
tremendous time-pressure, often by incapable coders, using dangerous
languages and inadequate tools, trying to connect to heaps of broken or
obsolete protocols, implemented equally insufficiently, running on
unpredictable hardware -- we are all more than used to brokenness.
                   --Felix Winkelmann

Received on Tuesday, 21 December 2010 02:51:49 UTC