- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:01:24 -0600
- To: "'Norman Walsh'" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, www-tag@w3.org
Umm, Norm, if I and a group of like minded folks are determined to subset DOCBOOK (done all the time), should you be obliged to document and support those subsets? I'm not sure why the SOAP WG is privileged to demand that. SOAP is just another document type whether it has a DOCTYPE or not. I concur they can as all applications can, choose not to attach semantic value in their processors to some XML productions, but I fail to see why as Elliotte says, a semantic restriction should become a syntax subset of XML, supported by the XML core. I see no evidence of a disaster in that direction. I see some probability of a disaster if the code bases of core XML processors are forked to support the semantic restrictions of one or a few applications. len -----Original Message----- From: Norman Walsh [mailto:Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM] Honestly, that would be my preferred position in an ideal world. But this isn't an ideal world and there's plenty of evidence that there are user communities determined to subset. So I think the best compromise for interoperability is to make sure there's one subset they can all refer to instead of having eleven different ones.
Received on Friday, 17 January 2003 10:01:57 UTC