- From: Murata Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 17:33:13 +0900
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
Tim, >I have hear any convincing argument why the spec should try to clean >up this mess single-handed, and why it should say one word more than >it does today. I think that the role of a standard is: a) to clearly define what is a conforming implementation, and b) to enture that conforming implementations successfully interwork. Although it is useful to show suggestions for implementors, a) and b) are the most important. I do not think the current Part 1 fulfills a) and b). Let me show an example. Consider a proxy server that performs code conversion without rewritting the PI. Consider a WWW browser or robot that does not understand XML. Such browsers or robots certainly exist now and will not disappear in the near future. If they save a transfered XML document in a file, the header information will disappear and the PI will remain incorrect. Then, an XML parser is likely to fail. Now that implementations fail to interwork, something should be wrong. I would like to know which one is wrong. The proxy server? The WWW browser or a robot? The parser? Is this clear from Part 1? Or, is this outside the scope of Part 1? Makoto Fuji Xerox Information Systems Tel: 044-812-7230 Fax: 044-812-7231 E-mail: murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp
Received on Thursday, 19 June 1997 04:31:29 UTC