- From: Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:12:04 -0400
- To: "Mike Champion" <mc@xegesis.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
When you quote from a thread that is 6 months old it will help TAG members if you could give the URL of the reference. In this case I "think" you are quoting from an email that Norm wrote in Jan! http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jan/0178.html The TAG's current position on this matter is documented under: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlProfiles-29 which post-dates the message you might have been quoting. /paulc Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com > -----Original Message----- > From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of > Mike Champion > Sent: July 24, 2003 8:36 PM > To: www-tag@w3.org > Subject: Re: On subsetting XML... > > > 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 21:12:49 UTC