Scratch that, I guess I wasn’t reading well enough : Element Information Items [namespace name], [local name], [prefix], [children], [attributes], [namespace attributes], [in-scope namespaces], [base URI], [parent] I guess for my tastes the Minimum is way too advanced. I'd like to see profiles where Namespace interpretation is not required and possibly not even attributes. From: David Lee [mailto:dlee@calldei.com] Most Excellent ! I was only aware of the XProc Profile spec. Question: I cant tell by reading this isf the Minimum profile actually requires parsing of namespaces. It must be "namespace wellformed' which just limits the number ":" in attributes but does it have to be a 'namespace aware' processor ? From: vojtech.toman@emc.com [mailto:vojtech.toman@emc.com] Just to make sure, you are all aware of the XML Processor Profiles draft, right? http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-proc-profiles/ Incidentally, it is in last call now, so if you want to comment, you should let us know now. :) Regards, Vojtech -- From: David Lee [mailto:dlee@calldei.com] +10 !!! for conformance classes. This is what I meant when suggesting "Processor Profiles". A set of well-defined subsets of XML for particular purposes. It would all still be "XML" but just limit the use to particular features, and enable processers to be written optimized for that class/profile. By defining these publicly it gives a 'nod' to the users to 'feel OK' about what they are doing, and a justification to other engineers/mgt etc. It also gives a common set of specs for all parts of the content pipe. This would be a great boon for the Mobile space, IMHO, as we might actually get a decent mobile XML parser (possibly in JS) conforming to a 'standard' profile … instead of giving up because doing 100% was just too big. "Were using Min Profile 3.2 - No Namespaces, No Mixed Content …" |