XML processor profiles comment from XML Core WG

I'm speaking as a member of the XML Core WG here, and the WG has
agreed-in-principle with what I'm saying, but hasn't specifically voted
on this text.

My main concern is that the list of recommended profiles looks quite
arbitrary: why these and no others?  A further concern is with the
term "recommended": recommended for what purpose?  I would be happier
if you just labeled them Profile I to Profile IV, or something of the
sort.  Detaching this from its context makes it seem as if Profile IV
is exactly what the well-respected XML parser author ought to provide
nowadays, and it's far from clear that that's true.

-- 
John Cowan    cowan@ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
The present impossibility of giving a scientific explanation is no proof
that there is no scientific explanation. The unexplained is not to be
identified with the unexplainable, and the strange and extraordinary
nature of a fact is not a justification for attributing it to powers
above nature.  --The Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "telepathy" (1913)

Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 17:32:34 UTC