- From: Michael Sokolov <sokolov@falutin.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:51:15 -0400
- To: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
- Cc: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>, MicroXML <public-microxml@w3.org>
On 7/26/2012 8:42 AM, David Lee wrote: >>> But cannot that be done without MicroXML ? Simply by sticking to a simpler >> set of XML? >> >> That is one solution. I believe MicroXML could be a simpler alternative? > Please explain, I dont get it. How is learning a new spec easier then learning a "cheat sheet" of "Simple XML that does all you need". > > It's the difference between a convention and a specification. Maybe everyone using SGML could have agreed to stop using all the complicated features and it would have simply become XML by default. I'm not sure about that, but it seems possible. However without the specification, there is no *guarantee*. The specification provides a means for creating a compact between supplier and vendor so that everyone knows what the rules are. I think your "cheat sheet" just *is* the specification by another name and without the formality. -Mike
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2012 12:52:05 UTC