Re: [xml-dev] Towards XML 2.0

["Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com>]

Original Message From: "David Lee"

> 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 ?

And presumably it still requires processing of internal DTD for attribute 
default values and so on?

The profiles seem more like XML 1.0 + XML Namespaces + other additional 
profile specific stuff, rather than simplifications.  Personally it's not 
what I'm looking for.

Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd
Interface XML to C++ the easy way using C++ XML
data binding to convert XSD schemas to C++ classes.
Visit http://codalogic.com/lmx/ or http://www.xml2cpp.com
for more info

> From: vojtech.toman@emc.com [mailto:vojtech.toman@emc.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 7:55 AM
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Towards XML 2.0
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Vojtech Toman
> Consultant Software Engineer
> EMC | Information Intelligence Group
> vojtech.toman@emc.com
> http://developer.emc.com/xmltech
>
>
>
> From: David Lee [mailto:dlee@calldei.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 1:44 PM
> To: 'Cecil New'; stephengreenubl@gmail.com
> Cc: Toman, Vojtech; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Towards XML 2.0
>
>
>
> +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 ."
>
>