Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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@e... [mailto:vojtech.toman@e...] > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 7:55 AM > To: xml-dev@l... > 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@e... > http://developer.emc.com/xmltech > > > > From: David Lee [mailto:dlee@c...] > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 1:44 PM > To: 'Cecil New'; stephengreenubl@g... > Cc: Toman, Vojtech; xml-dev@l... > 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 ." > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
