RE: [xml-dev] Towards XML 2.0

["David Lee" <dlee@calldei.com>]

Same here, I sent a comment to the WG to propose much simpler profiles. 
I will see if they are interested.  I'm willing to work on the specs for
these simpler profiles, but only if the WG is interested otherwise it's a
waste of time.

I'm all for defining processor profiles to spell out specific compliance
expectations and simplify to the users how they know what processor does,
but I'd really like to see profiles that are a *small subset* of what even
the "minimum" profile has.
There's a huge range of either existing or potential XML (documents and
processes) which would benefit by a 'bare bones' standard.
(where of course the definition of 'bare bones' would be different from
person to person ! hence the need to define a set of them !)

This might be the spec to put those in, if not we'll have to write a *new*
spec for "Even Simpler XML Processor Profiles" and make life yet more
confusing for everyone.


----------------------------------------
David A. Lee
dlee@calldei.com
http://www.xmlsh.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Cordell [mailto:petexmldev@codalogic.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 8:59 AM
To: David Lee; vojtech.toman@emc.com; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Towards XML 2.0


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 ."
>
>