RE: xml:* attributes

John,

> Rushforth, Peter scripsit:
> 
> > OK, well, I'll hold fire until I see what AF-lite might 
> actually look
> > like, but if it needs links (what doesn't), those at least IMHO,
> > should be in a reference vocabulary that's reserved, or root.
> 
> The whole point of AF is not to have to reserve anything.  

> Instead,
> AF transforms tell you how to translate a document that conforms to a
> private schema into one that conforms to a public schema,

I'll be particularly interested in how the public schemas are _referenced_, as well as what format they are in.  I see in your later email you refer to "a source and an _archmap_".  Is the archmap component found in-line, or by reference?

> Let me quote from my AF:NG document:
> 
>     The purpose of AF:NG is to provide for tightly specified
>     transformations of XML documents, consisting of renaming or
>     omitting elements, attributes, and character data. AF:NG is
>     not intended as a general-purpose transformation language like
>     XSLT or Omnimark. Using AF:NG, a recipient may, instead of
>     specifying a schema to which documents must conform exactly,
>     specify a schema to be applied to the output of an AF:NG
>     transformation. In that way, the actual element and attribute
>     names, and to some degree the document structure, may vary from
>     the schema without rendering the document unacceptable. In
>     particular, it is easy to use AF:NG to reduce a complex document
>     to a much simpler one, when only a subset of the document is of
>     interest to the recipient.
> 
> > Any 2012 trip down the overly-complex and
> > not-related-to-the-web-we-actually-work-with xlink path is 
> effort ill
> > spent.
> 
> Few XML documents are on the web, though many documents on the web are
> generated from XML documents.
  
Another way of putting that is: 

Many resources on the web should have an XML representation because they are generated from XML.
But the semantics of those XML representations is hidden because they are transformed to HTML representations, which makes the semantics readily apparent to humans, but opaque to applications.

> In addition, it's not clear 
> that the Web
> is a use case for MicroXML at all, except for the HTML5 aspect of it.

I'm a user of XML, and potentially MicroXML.  What would be the intended client of a MicroXML document?  

Peter

Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2012 21:52:09 UTC