Re: Architectural Forms for MicroXML

Rushforth, Peter scripsit:

> I'll be particularly interested in how the public schemas are
> _referenced_, as well as what format they are in.

I should really have said "public document types"; there's no requirement
that a formal schema be provided or even exist.  If we decide to have PIs,
then the xml-model PI can be used to refer to a schema from a document
claiming to conform to it.

> I see in your later email you refer to "a source and an _archmap_".
> Is the archmap component found in-line, or by reference?

The relation of archmaps to source documents will often be many-to-many.
That is, a source document may be mapped, using multiple archmaps, to
different target documents.  Consequently, it's unclear that any such
direct linkage between documents and archmaps should be defined.
Alternatively, the xml-style PI (if we have PIs) could be used.

> > Few XML documents are on the web, though many documents on the web
> > are generated from XML documents.
>
> Another way of putting that is:
>
> Many resources on the web should have an XML representation because
> they are generated from XML.

"Should" is an open question.  Some do, most don't; it's up to the
publisher of the document.

> I'm a user of XML, and potentially MicroXML.  What would be the
> intended client of a MicroXML document?

I don't know.  Someone who finds full XML overkill for their purposes,
whatever those purposes might be.

-- 
With techies, I've generally found              John Cowan
If your arguments lose the first round          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    Make it rhyme, make it scan                 cowan@ccil.org
    Then you generally can
Make the same stupid point seem profound!           --Jonathan Robie

Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2012 00:44:12 UTC