- From: Mike Champion <mc@xegesis.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 20:35:36 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Norm Walsh says: > Profiling XML, providing more implementation options, will necessarily > increase the possibility of interoperability problems and it would be > best to avoid doing so. Profiles are a bad idea on general principles > and are in direct conflict with one of the original goals of XML[1]: "the > number of optional features in XML is to be kept to the absolute > minimum, ideally zero." If this is Norm's personal opinion, I can respectfully disagree. If it is a draft of an official TAG finding on the subject, I personally find the tone to be quite inappropriate -- a bit of a lament that the world has somehow failed to appreciate the pure beauty of the original specification. Sheesh, it sounds like the complaints of hard-core SGML devotees against XML itself 5 years ago :-) Profiling is about *maximizing* interoperability in a world where ad hoc subsetting has already occurred. Stress the positive: the original design of XML has been immensely useful in a wide variety of ways that were barely anticipated by the original WG. As with everything else, its very success in a variety of environments led to new requirements, and some refactoring is necessary to fine tune it to meet those requirements.
Received on Thursday, 24 July 2003 20:35:52 UTC