[
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.
Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
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?
|
