On 14 Feb 2005, at 3:42 am, James M Snell wrote:
Finally, I see now discussion of interoperablity concerns in your proposal. Any proper treatment of profiles should at least touch on the topic of compatibility with the "core" profile" PaceProfileAttribute, for instance, strongly recommends that any new profiles be created so that they are backwards compatible with the core while acknowledging that incompatible profiles could be created. The proposal also states that @profile is informational only and does not impose any implementation requirements on the part of implementors. Things aren't so clear with PaceProfile. Is the @profile attribute normative? Are implementations *required* to validate against the profile? What should an implementor do if an unknown profile is found?
Yes. I can't see any consideration against people creating spurious new profiles, or even of when a new profile should be created. Totally unacceptable in this form.
Graham
