- From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:20:21 -0700
- To: XProc WG <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
I've been working through what it would take as well as implementing some of the parts of the recommended profile within WebKit. I have some "heartburn" with the difference between the "basic" and "recommended" profile. While it would seem to be important to consider the recommended profile as the baseline for web browsers, I don't think it will be well received by the various parties involved in web browser development to "read and process" all external markup declarations as the general tendency has been towards reducing fetching "unnecessary" web resources. As such, I looked at backing off from the recommended profile to a lesser one where we don't require reading and processing external markup declarations. That brings me back down to the "basic" profile and so I loose xinclude support. As such, what I really want is the "basic" profile with xinclude. Obviously, the combinatorics of all the different possibilities prohibits us from enumerating the different combinations. I do believe that the web browser is one of our important use cases and I can't help but wonder if we've missed the mark. Shouldn't the recommended profile be the profile we expect the web browser to implement? If not, shouldn't there be one that has xinclude in it? Also, since "reading and processing external markup declarations" is essentially code words for "support DTDs", aren't we enshrining DTD support in our "recommended profile"? There are certainly many recent days where I wish they would go away. -- --Alex Milowski "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language considered." Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2011 23:20:48 UTC