- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:03:56 -0500
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2aaflm0bn.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Perhaps I'm just feeling grumpy today... It strikes me that the browser case is the important use case for the processor profiles document. Tools built on top of real XML parsers can almost all be persuaded to do the modest and/or recommended profiles. So there's definitely value in having the document for other XML specs, but it probably matters less what it actually says for those cases because they're mostly flexible. If we accept that browsers aren't going to change, they're never going to do the modest or recommended profiles. So we've produced a document that recommends the impossible. That seems ... unhelpful. I have an inflamatory proposal. Rename the "recommended" profile to "comprehensive" Rename the "basic" profile to "recommended". Drop the "modest" profile into the bit bucket. So we have minimal, recommended, and comprehensive. Three profiles instead of four and better names. The recommended profile doesn't do what we might have hoped, but it does what the browsers do (or might be persuaded to do) so most folks will think that the browsers are doing the recommended thing and that's nice. Us old timers who still sometimes use external subsets ought to drag our lazy selves into the twenty-first century and just stop. Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh Lead Engineer MarkLogic Corporation www.marklogic.com
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2011 15:04:25 UTC