Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Profiles

[Shawn <sgrover@open2space.com>]

Dave Pawson wrote:
> 2008/6/17  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:
> 
>>> Or the other way round? The base could be a minimal document?
>>> Then profiles build on that.
>>>
>> It can go either way.  Some profiles, like XHTML Basic, are subsets of an
>> existing standard.  But there is also a W3C profile called "An XHTML +
>> MathML + SVG Profile" that combines standards.  In theory you could subtract
>> some features while adding others.
> 
> 
> Either way, request that the TC charter include addressing profiles and consider
> both documentation based and application based
> 
> regards

But wouldn't defining the definition of a profile be part of the 
charter?  Not necessarily creating a profile, but the guideline of what 
goes into a profile.

We've talked about *maybe* using profiles, and we deferred the 
discussion.  I think the topic needs to be addressed a little more, and 
come to a definitive conclusion that profiles will/will not be used, and 
if so, just what is a profile....

Yes, passing the chore of creating a profile should fall to the TC.  But 
lets at least give them a starting point... :)  I could just picture the 
conversation when the TC gets started:

"hmm.. the charter says we should use profiles."
"What's a profile"
"Doesn't say."

(yes, I'm ignoring the fact that some of the members of this list would 
be on the TC, and that the TC would have access to the list archives...)

And I'm not saying they cannot redefine the idea of a profile if/when 
needed either, but I know I prefer to start a new project with *some* 
direction, rather than no direction.

Just a thought...

Shawn