- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 16:00:43 -0600
- To: www-qa@w3.org
At 10:36 AM 8/13/02 -0400, David Marston/Cambridge/IBM wrote: >[...] >The latest taxonomy of the types of W3C specs is: >1. foundation or abstract (e.g., Infoset), >2. content/data (e.g., MathML, SVG), >3. protocols (e.g., SOAP), >4. processors (e.g., XSLT, XML Query), >5. APIs (e.g., DOM), >6. notation/syntax (e.g., XPath), >7. set of events (e.g., one part of XForms), >8. rules for deriving profiles (e.g., part of SVG). > >Yesterday, Dominique wrote: > >the 4th bullet "processors" doesn't answer the same question as the > >other bullets: XSLT doesn't specify a "processor", but a processing > >language. I would say too that the 2nd bullet would be clearer with > >"content/data formatting" > >As someone who works with the XSLT spec as my primary occupation, I >find it pretty clear that the spec intends to define the behavior of >a processor. [...more explanation...] If we want to pursue this as an issue, we probably have to do so after the pending WD publication. Is it still an issue? The question is also still open, about a suggested suffix for #2: "formatting", versus "syntax" or "syntax and ..." or "...other?..." (Similarly, this probably waits until after publication.) >[...] >I think we should use this list to discuss the classification scheme, >but only get really active on it after the next Working Draft is out >for comments. Yes, that is the purpose of this WD publication -- feedback on direction. -Lofton.
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2002 18:00:36 UTC