Re: xml:* attributes

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:51 AM, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> wrote:

>
> in other words you would have the same kind of fragmentation of
> different systems supporting different specs that has grown up around
> the xml/xml+ns/xml+ns+xml:id specifications, and that a simple self
> contained micro-xml spec was supposed to avoid.
>

Actually, I don't see it this way. I don't see avoiding a fragmentation of
layers on top of μXML as a goal at all. John proposed the "self-contained"
goal and I think I have an idea why, but I'd leave it to him to say for
sure, but John has also spoken of Examplotron as well as MicroRNG (though
more lately the former), which would count as a bit of "fragmentation" in
itself.

There is nothing wrong with that. As with XML, the idea is to provide a
common alphabet, and let the layers compete on top of that.

After all, there will always be at least as much 'fragmentation" as there
are separate implementations of processing pipelines, whether some of this
is manifested in additional specs or not.


In pure micor-xml, xml:id attributes should either work or should be
> banned, and since no one appears to want to suggest that the data model
> should include ID typing, that means banning.
>
> If another specification needs micro-xml + xml:id it should extend the
> language and the data model at the same time.


I think that is the *real* path to fragmentation, having each layer change
syntax in a way incompatible with the layer below it (i.e. μXML bans this
attributes but μXML-id-prime re-allows them).


-- 
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