- From: David Ezell <David_E3@Verifone.Com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:53:41 -0500
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
By vote of the Working Group in Redmond during the December 13-14 face to face meeting, I've been asked to revise the wording of DR309. === From the 2000-12-19 XP Requirements WD: >DR309 Ednote: Pending proposal. Owner: David Ezell > >In cases where the contract between entities is well known, the use >of XP as a protocol to fulfill those application contracts should >allow processing without requiring a complex XML application >infrastructure provided the documents exchanged are well-formed >and within the tenets of the XML Infoset. === Proposed revision: >DR309 > >Following the example of XHTML Basic [1], XML Protocol should support >exchange vocabularies which will work on resource constrained devices, >including devices which may not be able to support the full feature set >normally associated with XML processing environments. === Rationale: The idea of quoting W3C precedent for this idea is new to me, and I'm trying to get a feel for community acceptance. I don't think I've changed the basic sense of the requirement. Specific issues raised at the f2f: a-- "tenets of the XML Infoset" is not widely understood. b-- use scenarios are not easy to imagine. Other observations: XHTML Basic (recently a proposed recommendation) is probably a good example of where we'd like to head with this requirement [1], and I'm floating the idea of referencing it. From the text: >HTML 4 is a powerful language for authoring Web content, but its >design does not take into consideration issues pertinent to small >devices, including the implementation cost (in power, memory, etc.) >of the full feature set. Consumer devices with limited resources >cannot generally afford to implement the full feature set of HTML 4. >Requiring a full-fledged computer for access to the World Wide Web >excludes a large portion of the population from consumer device >access of online information and services. Replace "HTML 4" with "XP 1.0" and it's rather close, I think. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xhtml-basic-20001219/ Thanks, David Ezell
Received on Friday, 29 December 2000 16:53:56 UTC