- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 10:51:41 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2ehyrsd8i.fsf@nwalsh.com>
Hi folks, Henry and I chatted a little bit about the processor profiles document and next steps on same last week (er, a couple of weeks ago now, but who's counting). I went into the conversation feeling like we had a long way to go. I'm happy to say that I left feeling like there's a much shorter distance between where we are and victory. My notes contain two concrete suggestions: 1. Amend the introduction to note that we're talking entirely about batch processors, not interactive processors. There's no dicscussion of reporting requirements in the case of "live" data models. As Alex has demonstrated, there are definitely more things to consider if you're talking about the effects of modifying a data model "in memory". But the XML family of specs have always been pretty silent on that point and I don't see us undertaking to fix that in this version of this document. 2. Rename the profiles. After twenty minutes of head scratching, here's the best we could come up with: Basic profile ID profile Not-self-contained profile Full profile Clearly "not-self-contained" is a crap name. Better suggestions most welcome. I suggest we make these changes, respond to the last call comments that we got (some of which will take time and energy, volunteers welcome), and see if that gets us over the finish line. (Henry, please let me know if you think I missed anything or mischaracterized our discussion.) Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh Lead Engineer MarkLogic Corporation Phone: +1 413 624 6676 www.marklogic.com
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2011 14:52:35 UTC