[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Towards XML 2.0

• From: Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>
• To: David Lee <dlee@calldei.com>
• Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:32:03 +0000

It isn't too clear what is the relationship between these profiles and XProc
(at least, not someone new to this). Is this about XML in general and how it
is processed or is it somehow just within the domain of XProc? Is it just a
coincidence that it is maintained together with XProc profiles?

Best regards

Steve
---
Stephen D Green




On 7 December 2010 13:20, David Lee <dlee@calldei.com> wrote:
> 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 ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> David A. Lee
>
> dlee@calldei.com
>
> http://www.xmlsh.org
>
>
>
> 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:  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:  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 …"

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: <vojtech.toman@emc.com>

• References:
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: <vojtech.toman@emc.com>
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: Cecil New <cecil.new@gmail.com>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@calldei.com>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: <vojtech.toman@emc.com>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@calldei.com>