RE: xml:* attributes

Sorry, pulled the trigger by accident!


Any spec that requires a transformation to be useful is too complex.  That said, I have only recently started to read up on AF.

But if you have to even so much as squint your eyes to think about what a piece of markup might mean, it is getting too complex.  Now @xml:* might appear complexer than just @*, but not by too much.  And there's no declaration required, so cut and paste and probably lots of other things "just work".  I know I personally am hoping for hypermedia someday, but whatever.  Even Atom uses xml:base after all.  It can't be that bad.

Peter

________________________________
From: Rushforth, Peter
Sent: August 21, 2012 07:51
To: 'Uche Ogbuji'; public-microxml@w3.org
Subject: RE: xml:* attributes

Uche,

________________________________
From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche@ogbuji.net]
Sent: August 18, 2012 01:51
To: public-microxml@w3.org
Subject: Re: xml:* attributes
I think the argument is that xml:id rather than id and xml:lang rather than lang would strike our mythical developer as a bit too far along in the quirks department.  I can see that, argument, and more importantly, the ban of colons is the smaller increment over the starting point, so I think it gets a bost from that.

I think it would be a huge reclamation from complexity in the XMl stack if rather than global attributes in locally scoped namespaces we could enshrine a way to express cross-vocabulary concepts as abstract forms interpreted through syntactical transforms.  That's why I'm especially happy to read:

> Exactly what I was thinking.  I think a MicroAF would be a very, very good
> thing.

*sighs exhaustedly*

Okay, I'll look into it.

I think you're one of the few who could get that just right.