W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-microxml@w3.org > October 2012

Re: thoughts on next steps

From: Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 10:12:50 +0100
Message-ID: <CAA0AChVDvuEWyrj80AHehtEF7L4G9uMbr4Bk8ekCjNCNDEiRMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Cc: James Fuller <jim@webcomposite.com>, public-microxml@w3.org
In line with the quote:
“It seems that perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add,
but when there is nothing left to take away” – Antoine de Saint-Exupery
 and to keep faith with the MicroXML goals, how about asking two questions -

Could/should the spec be reduced still further? Could/should MicroXML
itself be reduced still further?
----
Stephen D Green



On 3 October 2012 07:55, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> James Fuller scripsit:
>
> > * I maybe wrong, but I don't think the recent publication communicated
> > to the world at large that we are seeking public review … we should
> > reinforce this message
>
> I agree.
>
> > I think the spec is remarkably brief, concise and from a personal
> > point of view cohesive (at least for my purposes) … and I note this
> > single document replaces a number of other docs (wondering what the
> > page count ratio is)
>
> MicroXML: 7 pages
> JSON RFC: 10 pages
> XML Rec (5th Edition): 30 pages + XML Infoset: 14 pages = 43 pages
>
> > I will start writing up some tutorial around the parsers i've created.
>
> Excellent.  I'm going back to working on MicroLark.
>
> --
> Income tax, if I may be pardoned for saying so,         John Cowan
> is a tax on income.  --Lord Macnaghten (1901)           cowan@ccil.org
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2012 09:13:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 October 2012 09:13:38 GMT