Re: Architectural Forms for MicroXML

Rushforth, Peter scripsit:

> That would be a wasted opportunity to define global hypermedia
> affordance support, and thus improve the self-contained-ness of
> MicroXML.

All I can say is that the emerging consensus in the MicroXML CG seems to
be against the use of namespaces or globally meaningful names in any form.
Architectural forms serve some of the same purposes as global names,
but in a more distributed way.  Historically, absolute names have tended
to beat distributed names (as in email addresses with @ rather than !),
but who knows what will happen in this case.

> I thought MicroXML was about helping off-load the semantic overloading
> of HTML.  Perhaps I was wrong.

The tentative design goals can be seen at
http://www.w3.org/community/microxml/wiki/Design_Goals . I don't know
what "off-load the semantic overloading of HTML" even means.

> I think the point here is: _what_ would be the application which
> consumed a MicroXML document, not who.

Ah.  But "the application" suggests there is only one (principal)
application.  There is no such application for XML documents; why should
there be for MicroXML documents?

My aim with MicroXML is to help create something which can be used for
many purposes, most of which I have no idea of at present.  The first
application of Unix was to help Bell Labs prepare patent applications,
but the system was neither designed for that, nor has it become the
principal application of Unix and its many descendants.

-- 
Note that nobody these days would clamor for fundamental laws        John Cowan
of *the theory of kangaroos*, showing why pseudo-kangaroos are   cowan@ccil.org
physically, logically, metaphysically impossible.    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Kangaroos are wonderful, but not *that* wonderful.     --Dan Dennett on zombies

Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 16:33:23 UTC