RE: Zen & Chinwag

<- CC/PP is not *just* a client-side framework, even if that is the
<- use case we
<- describe. It can as well be applied to server-side profiles, i.e. exactly
<- what you describe. It is a framework, after all. What you would
<- need to do
<- would be to define a vocabulary.

I think this demonstrates what I'd say is one of the weaker points of
CC/PP - I think it would be a lot healthier with a broader core vocabulary,
so a client-side profile and a server-side profile could be expressed in
exactly the same basic terms (I'd also suggest changing the scope of the
profile somewhat, but that's another story ;-).

Having said that, there are related ares where CC/PP really does seem to
have got it right - I can't fault the approach taken with the more specific
applications described - e.g. having a 'recommended' client vocabulary for
print and display [1] is great - the temptation to include something like
this in the core must have been strong, but CC/PP gains as a whole from
keeping things like this as extensions/options/modules.

<- Any standard is the result of compromises. If you want to see your system
<- used outside research, please try to use CC/PP and tell us why it did not
<- work, so we can fix it. I believe the overlap is big enough for them to
<- converge, if that is what is required.

This is a very gracious response (thank you), and very pleasing by in effect
stating that CC/PP isn't set in stone - I do think it's mainly baby, not all
that much bathwater (pardon the metaphor mix). BTW, I'm personally glad of
your reassertion of CC/PP - I was certainly heading for some wheel
re-invention. Next steps I take in this direction will certainly be taken
bearing CC/PP in mind.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-vocab/  section 5.

Received on Monday, 16 April 2001 10:29:10 UTC