[closed] Re: Troubles Implementing Recommended Profile in Web Browsers

At the 13 Oct telcon, we agreed that we could close this issue.

Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> writes:
> 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.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh
Lead Engineer
MarkLogic Corporation
Phone: +1 413 624 6676
www.marklogic.com