• From: <vojtech.toman@e...>
• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:28:57 -0500

> 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.

Well, the goal of this spec was not to make things simpler but to provide a firmer ground for other specs and XML applications so that they can point to one of the processor profiles and say: this is what we expect the XML processor to do and this is the information that we expect to get from it. GRDDL is a nice example of a specification that suffers from the ambiguity of what an XML processor is actually supposed to do.

But I agree that looking at the current set of XML processor profiles from this thread's "making-things-simpler" perspective might be interesting/valuable.

Regards,
Vojtech


--
Vojtech Toman
Consultant Software Engineer
EMC | Information Intelligence Group
vojtech.toman@e...
http://developer.emc.com/xmltech

• References:
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: <vojtech.toman@e...>
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@g...>
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: Cecil New <cecil.new@g...>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: <vojtech.toman@e...>
  • RE: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "David Lee" <dlee@c...>
  • Re: Towards XML 2.0
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>