W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2003

RE: [xmlProfiles-29] xml subsetting in IETF XMPP

N.B.: This page is a copy of a real mailing list archive generated to test the proposed mailing lists archives improvements.

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Tue, Apr 01 2003
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE022DC079@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

Are you suggesting that this is a candidate for the subset 
that represents XML functionality when applied to protocols?

As soon as it quits being general purpose, it starts being 
special purpose, yes?  Then the consensus needed is the 
consensus of protocol developers(?) and not the consensus 
of the entire community of general XML developers and users, 

If that is the case, does the TAG really need to bless 
that decision or simply recognize it and ensure it is 
documented properly? 


From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]

Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM wrote:

> (I still prefer the term "usage convention" to "subset"

I don't.  Let's call a spade a spade.  SOAP/XMLPP have created an 
incompatible subset of XML such that general-purpose XML generators 
cannot reliably be used to generate their messages, and general-purpose 
XML procedssors cannot reliably be used to receive them.  It looks like 
a subset, walks like a subset, quacks like a subset.

If this is going to happen, it should happen only once and the subset 
should be well-defined and based on consensus.  It is indeed instructive 
that the two subsets seem pretty well isomorphic.
Received on Tue Apr 1 16:49:14 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8 : Tue, May 06 2003 EDT