OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
  • To: "Clark C. Evans" <cce@clarkevans.com>, Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@geotempo.com>
  • Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:56:34 -0600

Isn't that typically called profiling and a 
standard operating procedure for many standards 
organizations?  The citations have to 
be clean and if possible, conformance tests 
provided.   There is no real danger as long 
as the propers are followed.  It gets dangerous 
when features are introduced that would break 
a superset-conformant system or if the claims 
for the subset overlap the features that can 
only be met in the superset.  No mystery, but 
some tedium if you have to sort all of it 
out while you implement.


Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h

-----Original Message-----
From: Clark C. Evans [mailto:cce@clarkevans.com]

Given the above 
constraints, does it not make sence to try and identify 
the 20%, give it a name, like "Common XML".  So that as
vendors, lone hackers, etc., implement W3C specifications
they have a better chance of implementing their first pass
in a way which will *maximize* interoperability in our 
less-than-perfect world?


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS