- From: Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 18:11:24 -0500
- To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, www-tag@w3.org, Michael Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 04:45:53PM -0500, Ian B. Jacobs wrote: > Unfortunately, a number of user communities have expressed a need > to work with only a subset of XML. A major design goal of XML 1.0 was "no optional features". If we had profiles, or subsets, then there would be some minimal base version of XML that had none of the optional features, and XML itself would be come XML with the optional features implemented. We would then need a mechanism for feature negotiation. A profile that does not have an internal subset would seem to strengthen the case of those who have said they want an XML Instance Syntax for declaring text entities (sometimes, confusingly, called character entities). I'm aware of several groups who want subsets, but they are by no means all the same subset. At any rate, this is a subject for the XML Core working group to discuss further. > In short, it appears that a new Recommendation-track document > that defines a subset of XML 1.1 should be developed: > > * The subset must be backwards compatible with XML 1.1. > * The subset must define a language that excludes DTD > declarations. I think that's one possible direction. Are you saying that the Tag has authority over the XML Core WG to demand that it develop such a profile, even if (for example) it satisfies the SOAP people at the expense of not satisfying others? Liam -- Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead, liam@w3.org, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/ Ankh's list of IRC clients: http://www.valinor.sorcery.net/clients/
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2003 18:47:54 UTC