On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 7:12 AM, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> wrote: > On 13/08/2012 16:56, David Lee wrote: > >> In which case why bother with any XML compatibility at all ? I would >> find that more confusing to users then helpful. >> > > > To see what might happen if you push towards a simpler data model but > don't have a constraint of xml syntax compatibility > > > http://dev.saxonica.com/blog/**mike/2012/08/#000193<http://dev.saxonica.com/blog/mike/2012/08/#000193> > > Not totally horrible:-) Well good. In addition to telling anyone discontented with XML that they are free to use JSON, one can now also tell them they are free to use FtanML. (Speaking for myself, I use JSON about as much as XML. I must say I doubt I'll find use for FtanML.) -- Uche Ogbuji http://uche.ogbuji.net Founding Partner, Zepheira http://zepheira.com http://wearekin.org http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/author/uogbuji/ http://copia.ogbuji.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/ucheogbuji http://twitter.com/uogbuji
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 13:27:21 UTC