Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Profiles

["Peter Dolding" <oiaohm@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Marston pointed out
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-spec-variability-20050831/
>
> The list of authors adds up to a lot more than a barrel of monkeys!
> It's quite clear, I'd bet Ian Jacobs edited it!
>
> From it some quite usable terms/definitions.
>
> (Thanks David, I now know what a 'dimension of variability' is
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-spec-variability-20050831/#variability )
> "The ways in which a specification can allow variability are referred
> to as dimensions of variability."
>
> Note.
> "As a general principle, variability complicates interoperability. "
>
> Even provides a definition of profiles
> "A profile is a subset of the technology that supports a particular
> functional objective or a subset of a set of technologies defining how
> they are required to operate together (e.g., XHTML plus MathML plus
> SVG [X-M-S]). (e.g., XHTML plus MathML plus SVG [X-M-S])."
>
> Anyone see how that could be of use to this group?
>
>
> More useful
> "An individual profile defines the requirements for classes of
> products that conform to that profile. Rules for profiles define
> validity criteria for profiles themselves  i.e., if others (users,
> applications, or other standards) define their own profiles of the
> standard (called derived profiles of the specification), then rules
> for profiles define the constraints that those derived profiles must
> satisfy in order to be considered valid profiles of the
> specification."
>
> Another one
> "Functional levels — or in common usage simply levels — are used to
> group functionality into nested subsets, ranging from minimal or core
> functionality to full or complete functionally. Level 1 is the minimum
> or core of the technology. Level 2 includes all of level 1 plus
> additional functionality. This nesting continues until level n, which
> consists of the entire technology."
>
I see this dividing as more negative than good.

Sections in the main standard fine.  Where the sections have to be
compatible with everything else in the standard.

When you break it completely off to its own free will like w3c and
done many times over you need bigger and bigger processing engines to
handle the differences between them.

The logic is how to make a mess.  Remember XHTML is a profile off HTML itself.

This path has to be followed with masive care.   Better to reject it
and be wrong then take it and have the standard fragment into a bigger
and harder to process mess.

Opengl ES what is a sub profile of Opengl it has to be what is in the
main opengl standard.   This has kept opengl clean.  W3C models should
be avoided since it has proven its self as a mess maker.

Peter Dolding