[Archive copy mirrored from: http://www.ornl.gov/sgml/wg8/document/1924.htm]
| TITLE: | Proposal from the French and Norwegian National Bodies regarding the WebSGML TC |
| SOURCE: | Michel Biezunski and Steve Pepper |
| PROJECT: | JTC1.18.15.1 |
| PROJECT EDITOR: | Charles Goldfarb |
| STATUS: | Discussion proposal |
| ACTION: | For information |
| DATE: | |
| DISTRIBUTION: | WG8 and Liaisons |
| REFER TO: | |
| REPLY TO: | Dr. James David Mason
(ISO/IEC JTC1/SC18/WG8 Convenor) Lockheed Martin Energy Systems Information Management Services 1060 Commerce Park, M.S. 6480 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6480 U.S.A. Telephone: +1 423 574-6973 Facsimile: +1 423 574-0004 Network: masonjd@ornl.gov http://www.ornl.gov/sgml/wg8/wg8home.htm ftp://ftp.ornl.gov/pub/sgml/wg8/ |
In order to speed up the discussion process and increase the chance of achieving consensus during this WG meeting, the representatives of the French and Norwegian National Bodies wish to make the following proposal:
We have grouped the changes proposed for the WebSGML TC into four "levels of desirability and attainability".
The levels are arranged in order of priority. We believe levels 1, 2 and 3 are desirable and attainable in the time available and should form the basis of the TC. Our goal should be to achieve consensus at this meeting on a draft TC that covers these issues and that the final details should be decided in advance of the next WG8 meeting by email discussion.
Level 4 (the profiling mechanism) is also desirable, but it is too much for this TC and should be postponed until the next stage of the revision.
We further recognise the importance of the name space issues and propose that a discussion of these should be initiated once the draft TC has been agreed and that this discussion should be continued by email.
The levels are defined as follows:
LEVEL 1:
LEVEL 2:
LEVEL 3:
LEVEL 4:
Summary of reasons for rejecting level 4 in this TC: ....................................................
Level 4 changes should not be part of the WebSGML TC. In other words, there should not be any general profiling mechanism at this point.
The reason for this is not that we are opposed to the idea of a general profiling mechanism. On the contrary, we believe the idea has much to commend it and hope that it will be investigated further, with a view to possible incorporation in the final revision.
There are two reasons why we do not want to tackle the problem in the WebSGML TC:
Steve Pepper
Michel Biezunski
8th May 11997
First cut at categorising the proposed changes
Definitions: White space - WSCON feature (2.)
Definitions: DTD declarations, External subset, Internal subset
Definitions: "Profile" header, Global subset declaration - Comments (7.1)
Definitions: Profile header, SGML profile, - EMPTY END-TAG (4.3)