- From: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 04:35:58 -0700
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>, "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
> On 26/07/2012 12:25, Dave Pawson wrote: > > I'd suggest that those using XML with CSS are equally rare? > > > Presumably the point of microxml is to make it easy for people not > currently using xml to do so. If we only look for microxml uses where > people commonly already use full xml, there is little point in a subset. > > David > I am still confused by this whole philosophy ... and as such I am going to create a Why MicroXml page for use cases to help target tomatoes. If *authors* want easier XML they can simply author easier XML. If they don't know how, a "Dummies for XML" book could help them. They don't need MicroXML for that. If XML can currently be processed with XSLT1 and CSS in the browser *authors* can simply write simple XML if that is their concern. Where does MicroXML fit a need here ? -David
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2012 11:36:29 UTC