RE: Re[2]: Clark's commentary

Hi David,

Well... I'll dip my toe in the water here, but would make no claim to XML
guru status.

You ask what we believe is being used or imminently profileable on xml 2.0
which gives me a little problem interpreting the presense of letter, - or ?
in the table. Whether the presense of a letter signifies use, which perhaps
affords a level of protection to a 'feature' or profileable which perhaps
leaves the feature under threat of being rendered optional... a carbuncle to
be profile out...

Namespaces, XML base, XML 1.0 DTDs, entities, IDs , Schema, PSs (P) all seem
to meet needs for some application and seem to be unnecessary for others but
in some sense all are being used.

Infoset feels kind of different in that its abstract and seems to be more a
tool for writing specifications. I like the way that the recent RDF syntax
WD [1] has cast its grammar infoset terms.

Don't know about XInclude.

So on the basis of usage I think my line would be:

StuartW: NFBDEISP-? (which seems a little vacuous).

And on the basis of profileable:

StuartW: N?BD--SPTC

? on Infoset because I don't know what it would mean to profile infoset in
or out. I can conceive of its effect on a specification more than i can
conceive of its effect on the resulting technology. -'s on enities and IDs
because my gut feel is that you can't profile those out. 

Regards

Stuart
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20011218/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> Sent: 08 January 2002 23:49
> To: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Re[2]: Clark's commentary
> 
> 
> So how about we do a survey of what people believe is being used or
> imminently profileable in an xml 2.0?  I've put my best 
> guesses for Chris,
> Tim Bray, Norm, James.  Obviously, correct me where I'm 
> wrong.  And it would
> be great if others could add to the list
> 
> Feature:
> N = namespaces
> F = infoset
> B = Xml base
> D = XML 1.0 DTDs (include entities and IDs)
> E = entities from DTDs
> I = IDs (from either DTDs or Schema)
> S = Schema
> P = PIs in general (includes PIs for stylesheets)
> T = PIs for stylesheets (And a replacement for stylesheet PI 
> would remove
> need for PIs)
> C = XInclude specifically as a replacement for DTD entities
> 
> The letter is in scope, (-) is not in scope, and (?) is 
> unsure or I guessed
> List : NFBDEISPTC
> Chris: NFB-EI--T-
> DaveO: NFB--?S-TC
> TimBr: NF-----PT-
> NormW: NFBDEI-PT-
> 
> James: NFB-?--PT?
> Total: 5541221351
> 
> My list for James is based upon the sentence "His vision of a 
> much-improved
> XML 2.0 included adding in XML Namespaces, XML Base, and the 
> Infoset, while
> subtracting DTDs and dealing with the problem of character entities."
> 
> I'd like to be very clear on my position for schema.  To me, 
> XML 2.0 should
> support XML Schema.  But XML 2.0 should have 2 levels, same 
> as XML 1.0 has
> dtdless and dtd levels.  So RelaxNG could use well-formed XML 2.0.
> 
> <politicalCommentary>
> There is early consensus on at least adding namespaces, 
> infoset, and having
> the functionality of stylesheet PIs.  Base almost makes the 
> cut.  It is
> fascinating that there is little support early for XML 
> Schema.  We'll have
> to see what the 5 other TAG members say.
> </politicalCommentary>
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Lilley [mailto:chris@w3.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 2:58 PM
> > To: David Orchard
> > Cc: 'Tim Bray'; www-tag@w3.org
> > Subject: Re[2]: Clark's commentary
> >
> >
> > On Monday, January 07, 2002, 8:02:52 PM, David wrote:
> >
> > DO> Here we get into the excellent discussion of what
> > features are being used.
> > DO> Sorry Norm, but your iotas don't quite match my iotas.
> > Which isn't
> > DO> surprising though ;-)
> >
> > Which was Norms point about the *reason* for no other changes..
> >
> > DO> A nice facet of xml (2.0 = 1.0 - DTDs - PIs + namespaces
> > + infoset + xml
> > DO> base) is that I think it more closely mimics standard
> > practice, for example
> > DO> SOAP 1.2.
> >
> > Well, (as the XML processing workshop clearly demonstrated) 
> it depends
> > o *whose* definitio of standard practice, commonly used 
> features, etc.
> >
> > DO> This is an excellent example of architectural refactoring
> > that often happens
> > DO> in software.  SOAP 1.2 had to invent the equivalent of
> > XML 2.0 for what it
> > DO> needed.  Now it turns out that other people could use the
> > same definitions.
> > DO> So let's refactor the XML 2.0 stuff into a coherent
> > piece, then SOAP WG
> > DO> doesn't have to document it/maintain it.  And other specs
> > can use it rather
> > DO> than copying the verbage from soap 1.2.
> >
> > Which, as you observed, gets into the excellent discussion of what
> > features are being used. Speaking for what *I* see as 
> 'everyone using'
> > it includes some of DTDs (for ID and for entities - not 
> just character
> > entities either) - PI (one, for linking stylesheets since 
> that is the
> > one and only approved method), namespaces (plus multitudionous hacks
> > to pretend that DTDs understand namespaces) and xml base. And XLink.
> >
> > Although I do agree that the proper place for infoset is the XML
> > specification.
> >
> > If PIs went, would there be an XLink arcrole defined for stylesheet
> > linkage and the assorted title, media etc attributes (and if so in
> > what namespace) or would there be attempt n+1 to resurrect packaging
> > rather than hanging everything in a compound document off one,
> > priveledged (or should that be burdened) document?
> >
> > Bringing this back to the topic of discussion, it does clearly show
> > that factoring a problem into small easy pieces moves, rather than
> > removes, the effort of figuring out how all the pieces work 
> together.
> > It also demonstrates that changes in one piece affect the importance
> > or content of other pieces.
> >
> > --
> >  Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
> >
> >
>

Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2002 07:43:35 UTC