- From: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 10:49:49 -0800
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
I strongly =============>>> (I know I'm not telling you anything you don't know but still:-) opening up the data model has repercussions that are not impossible or even necessarily hard to specify but don't just automatically happen without specification as there are choices that need to be made. David =========<<< I am strongly with David C. here. A uxml Data model that is allowed to contain "things" which are not valid uXML opens up a huge slew of issues. I could start to enumerate them but I suspect we have good imaginations. My opinion of a compromise is that any such data model be dealt with by simply not calling itself a micro-xml data model. But perhaps a "derived from micro xml" or some other thing. You are free to invent them and make tools that use them but by not calling them valid uxml data models, and not opening the specs to say such a thing is a valid uxml data model, you don't contain authors using the 'real' uxml data model from having to consider variations and having to make decisions like what to do with fn:local-name( <$x/> ) . ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lee Lead Engineer MarkLogic Corporation dlee@marklogic.com Phone: +1 812-482-5223 Cell: +1 812-630-7622 www.marklogic.com
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2012 18:50:19 UTC