- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 07:37:27 -0800
- To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "'Paul Grosso'" <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>, <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Noah, I think the issue of subsetting XML is relevent to groups other than XMLP, and is thus clearly architectural. XMLP probably doesn't want to own the solution to the XML-wide issue of subsetting. The TAG document is starting to make specific mention of usages of XML. Indeed, I'm pretty sure the original comment was made as a result of a TAG presentation of new material on usage of XML. I strongly believe that the TAG document should say something about subsetting of XML, and this would help a fairly wide audience. IMO, part of the job of an architect is to take a look at a particular problem/issue, and see whether it has a wider scope. This fits in my books. Now it so happens that xmlp has done considerable trailblazing in this area. I personally think that the subset of XML that is used by XMLP is usable by a wider audience. I've regularly and enthusiastically supported XML profiling efforts [1], such as Tim Bray's XML-SW. I guess I look at the glass half full. This is a good opportunity for the TAG to look at the issue of how the family of XML specifications fit together, and perhaps do a bit of refactoring. I also think there's little chance of the text of soap 1.2 spec changing as a result of this discussion. I turn the question around to you. If there's a process foul, that means that the TAG can't or shouldn't look at the issue of subsetting/profiling of XML because 1 spec is after Last Call? I doubt that you think that way. So my appeal to you Noah, is that you think of this in the context of benefits to a larger community than just SOAP. Cheers, Dave [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2001Dec/0022.html > -----Original Message----- > From: www-tag-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of > noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com > Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 7:59 PM > To: Paul Grosso > Cc: www-tag@w3.org; fallside@us.ibm.com > Subject: Re: SOAP's prohibiting use of XML internal subset > > > > I'm curious, was this raised as a last call issue for SOAP? I don't > recall seeing it. The prohibition of internal subsets has, > as I recall, > been in every SOAP working draft since day 1, and certainly > was in the > last call draft. With respect, from a process point of view, > I find it > somewhat unfortunate that this issue is rasied to the TAG before or > instead of raising it through the normal workgroup feedback > mechanisms. > <snip/> > > I don't deny that this is an issue with (at least) two sides, > but here I > am concerned mainly about W3C process. I do understand that there is > potentially an architecture issue here as well, but I would > think that the > most useful input to the TAG would come as a summary of > whatever emerged > in a discussion between the protocols WG and those who might > question its > decisions regarding the internal subset. As far as I know, > that issue > wasn't raised and the discussion didn't happen. It is late > in the SOAP > review process, but if anything at all is to be done in > reopenning this > issue, I think it should start with the protocols workgroup > and not the > TAG. Thank you! > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 > IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 > One Rogers Street > Cambridge, MA 02142 > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com> > Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org > 11/25/02 12:50 PM > > > To: www-tag@w3.org > cc: (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM) > Subject: SOAP's prohibiting use of XML internal subset > Categories: > > > > > > > One of the design decisions/goals of the XML 1.0 Recommendation [1] > was to have as few optional features as possible [2]. XML 1.0 allows > an XML document to have a prolog that includes some declarations in > what is called the internal subset [3]. > > An important class of XML documents are those that are > "standalone" [4]. > In such documents, the only way to provide entity declarations [5] or > attribute defaults [6] is to put such declarations in the > internal subset. > > It is my understanding that the Last Call draft of SOAP 1.2 [7] makes > use of an XML format that does not permit any internal subset, despite > the fact that XML 1.0 does not define such a profile/subset > of XML. I > wonder what the definition of such profiles by individual > specifications > will do for interoperability. > > For a case in point, the XML Core WG has been asked to address the > issue of how to declare "character entities." Our answer (see [8]) > is that the way to declare such entities in XML is to use the > internal subset, an integral part of XML 1.0 that must be supported > by all compliant XML processors. The fact that this solution doesn't > work for SOAP has not overridden the XML Core WG's reluctance > to consider > development and endorsement of new XML syntax to support what > is already > supported in XML 1.0. However, we recognize that the current > situation > means that the use of entities and attribute defaults is not > available > to SOAP users. > > Is this an architectural issue that the TAG wishes to address? > > I am writing this message in a personal capacity, as I have > not discussed > this particular message with the XML Core WG (though at least > parts of the > > issue have been discussed in the WG, and there are clearly > parts of the > issue > that do touch on XML Core WG work). > > I would be interested in hearing any comments the TAG might have on > this situation. > > paul > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-origin-goals point 5 > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#dt-doctype > [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-rmd > [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-entity-decl > [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-attr-defaults > [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part0/ and others > [8] http://www.w3.org/XML/Core/2002/10/charents-20021023 > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2002 10:46:04 UTC