- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:16:12 +0000
- To: "David Lee" <dlee@calldei.com>
- Cc: <public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Speaking only for myself, and before the WG has had a chance to discuss your suggestion, I'm very much in two minds about this: 1) You're absolutely right in identifying a need, and I'm very glad that you suggested this, so that's good; 2) It would amount to a subsetting of XML w/o having been chartered to do that, outside the XML Core WG, so that's bad. I don't mean to imply that the problem is basically a bureaucratic one, but rather that what seems at first a simple matter of profiling for limited purposes becomes a much more complex matter. The difference between profile and subset also rears its ugly head: profiles don't change the language, depending on a profile doesn't change the fact that an implementer has to conform to the XML spec. itself. But subsets, and that's really what your talking about, allow and even implicitly encourage an implementer to fall short of conformance. . . We risk losing what Liam Quin calls The XML Promise: all XML tools can process any XML document. ht - -- Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFNAKxskjnJixAXWBoRArYIAJ9iGQm3a/6YRT33scciPqvTB/+Z8ACeIywZ n5qwj2YtgRB8N/0Sc/ORT/Q= =Qrd2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 9 December 2010 10:16:46 UTC