- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:21:14 +0100
- To: MicroXML <public-microxml@w3.org>
On 14 August 2012 14:05, Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 13 August 2012 23:25, Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com> wrote: >> >> > I don't see what's so hard to get about uXML. >> > >> > Murray >> >> >> >> Which perhaps exemplifies the 'them and us' gap of which David Lee speaks? >> >> A long standing beef with W3C/ISO is that they write for implementers. >> Perhaps, not being a document targeted for rec status could address this >> and produce the user guide to accompany a spec, to provide rationale, >> explanations and 'the sales pitch'? >> >> If uXML is written only for the expert > > > Yesterday I wrote in two separate messages that it's not only for the XML > expert. I see nothing in MicroXML so far that would exclude the novice. With respect Uche, that's the experts view of the 'spec' (as of today). I'll add to the cry that 'we' are making lots of assumptions behind that, based largely on what has gone before. I'm with David C, we should be explicit. Also that we need to bring non experts along with us if we hope to gain traction, even if it does mean a supporting document. > >> I agree it simply won't gain traction. > > > There really is nothing to respond to such assertions but "we shall see." Yep. regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 13:21:44 UTC