Re: Terminology proposals

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 14:11, Norm Tovey-Walsh <norm@saxonica.com> wrote:
>
> > "I like "visible XML", but less enamoured of "vxml", since it makes it
> > sound like it is some special version of XML. I think it should just
> > be "XML" (and it's the only place where XML is involved, as output).
>
> I think we’re going to get into conversations surrounding what actually
> gets serialized by the processor and what relationship it has to ixml
> processing. Consider, for example, serializing the result as JSON or
> serializing XML elaborated with a default namespace declaration. I think
> implementations are going to support both of those features.

A (hopefully brief) agenda item please?

>
> If we have a term for “the output of the ixml process” as distinct from
> “the output of the processor”, those conversations might be easier.
>
> Conformance, I’m imagining, would be at the “visible XML” layer.

<q>You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment</q>
;-)

regards




-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.

Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2022 14:18:08 UTC