RE: [xmlProfiles-29] TAG recommendation for work on subset of XML 1.1

And the W3C membership via the AC must be included in chartering.

Tim does at least speak for me on this.  We were asked whether a
profile/subset was a good or bad techhnical idea, and we gave our opinion.


> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of
> Tim Bray
> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 4:07 PM
> To: Liam Quin
> Cc: Ian B. Jacobs; Paul Grosso;; Michael
> Sperberg-McQueen
> Subject: Re: [xmlProfiles-29] TAG recommendation for work on subset of
> XML 1.1
> Liam Quin wrote:
> >>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?
> I think I'm speaking for the TAG when I say we claim no such
> authority,
> and that our message was pretty clear on this.
> We were asked to think about XML Profiles/Subsetting and it was our
> conclusion that there are good arguments for work in this area; we
> outlined some thoughts on the technical issues, and that's
> all.  It is
> up to the Core WG, the Co-ordination group, the W3C Team, and perhaps
> other interested parties to decide whether they agree, and if so, who
> should do the work and whether charter revisions are
> required, and  so
> on.  -Tim

Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2003 19:55:23 UTC