RE: [Minutes] 2 Dec 2002 TAG teleconference (New issues: XML subsetting, Binary XML, metadata in URIs)

At 11:33 2002 12 04 -0800, David Orchard wrote:

>I don't understand your response.  It seems to me like looking at a version
>2.0 is part of XML Core group's charter.  Are you saying that looking at a
>2.0 is not part of the charter?  Or are you saying that looking at profiles
>is not part of a 2.0?  Sorry for my confusion, but I'm really quite confused
>by your response given what seems explicit wording to me.

I asked what "this" was in "they are chartered to do this."

Ian said "profiles of XML (subsetting XML)...but [I] didn't find anything 
on this topic [in the charter]."

And I replied "Precisely" and quoted what was in the charter.

My interpretation of what is in our charter is that it is very
vague, but doesn't specifically mention subsetting or profiling.
That's mostly what I was pointing out.  That, and the fact that
both the Scope and the Deliverables and Schedule sections of the 
charter, when read as a whole, mention a whole lot of things in
various detail but only has a passing mention about studying 2.0,
so I wouldn't want people to expect that the XML Core WG has 
currently active plans to produce an XML 2.0 spec, much less that
it would define a subset/profile, which is how "they are chartered 
to do this" tends to be interpreted.

>Wearing my AC hat, I know that BEA voted for the charter of XML Core
>specifically to look at things like an XML NG that would include profiles of
>current specs, such as Tim Bray's XML-SW.

Now I'm confused.  Are you saying that the charter at
isn't the XML Core WG's charter that the AC voted on?

As co-chair, I have to run the WG based on the charter that is 
actually approved by the AC as a group, and it doesn't say anything 
about profiles or XML-SW.

>Wearing my TAG hat, I think that the TAG is a natural to help look at the
>phrase "if deemed advisable", but that XML Core obviously should be heavily
>involved in this.


My message was an attempt to clarify confusion about what is in
the charter and what the XML Core WG is currently tasked to produce.

I certainly do not object to the TAG and/or AC recommending that
certain topics such as this be added to the XML Core's list of
active tasks.  In fact, I would hope that the XML Core WG is where
it would be put (though I think the topic could benefit from more
discussion first--I am not yet convinced that there is widespread
agreement that it makes sense to subset XML).


Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 15:14:29 UTC