- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 15:49:07 -0600
- To: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Are you suggesting that this is a candidate for the subset that represents XML functionality when applied to protocols? As soon as it quits being general purpose, it starts being special purpose, yes? Then the consensus needed is the consensus of protocol developers(?) and not the consensus of the entire community of general XML developers and users, yes? If that is the case, does the TAG really need to bless that decision or simply recognize it and ensure it is documented properly? len From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com] Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM wrote: > (I still prefer the term "usage convention" to "subset" I don't. Let's call a spade a spade. SOAP/XMLPP have created an incompatible subset of XML such that general-purpose XML generators cannot reliably be used to generate their messages, and general-purpose XML procedssors cannot reliably be used to receive them. It looks like a subset, walks like a subset, quacks like a subset. If this is going to happen, it should happen only once and the subset should be well-defined and based on consensus. It is indeed instructive that the two subsets seem pretty well isomorphic.
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2003 16:49:14 UTC