- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 03:16:38 -0400
- To: James Fuller <jim@webcomposite.com>
- Cc: public-microxml@w3.org
James Fuller scripsit: > * any comments with respect to microxml and the following ? > http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-exi-20110310/ Since all MicroXML documents are XML documents, they can be converted to or from EXI without problem. > http://www.w3.org/TR/unicode-xml This describes itself as "guidelines on the use of the Unicode Standard in conjunction with markup languages such as XML"; MicroXML is such a markup language. > * in '5 Security Considerations' we assume that XML Canonization is a > security issue only, we may want to separate this out, pointing out > the various links to http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-c14n11/ . Worried that > this important information is being buried here. I'm not sure that XML Canonicalization matters to anyone outside the domain of security. > * I think the '1. Introduction' is far too verbose and could do with > stating very clearly the differences in non normative terms with XML > 1.0 right up front or perhaps just a link to B.1 Syntax is all that is > needed. Eventually internal references will be hyperlinks; we already refer to Appendix B in the second paragraph of the intro. But we need that explanation. Remember that our main audience is people who haven't drunk the XML Kool-Aid because it looked too complex. We need to explain why they should take a second look. -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org There are books that are at once excellent and boring. Those that at once leap to the mind are Thoreau's Walden, Emerson's Essays, George Eliot's Adam Bede, and Landor's Dialogues. --Somerset Maugham
Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2012 07:17:01 UTC