- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:49:34 +0100
- To: MicroXML <public-microxml@w3.org>
On 26 July 2012 13:42, David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com> wrote: >> > >> > But cannot that be done without MicroXML ? Simply by sticking to a simpler >> set of XML? >> >> That is one solution. I believe MicroXML could be a simpler alternative? > > Please explain, I dont get it. How is learning a new spec easier then learning a "cheat sheet" of "Simple XML that does all you need". Because an engineer isn't asked to learn 'a subset' of XML? The assumption is generally that you will learn all about it, and the other family members? That is what puts it (today) where SGML was in 96? >> > 2) To allow simplification of some specifications which currently or in the >> future may refer to the full XML specification could be substituted to refer to >> MicroXML instead. (e.g. SOAP). >> >> I'd be reluctant to put that as a driver David? Secondary >> consideration perhaps... > > True, but it was brought up. > The "total weight" of combined specifications could be reduced. Is that useful or valuable ? > Perhaps ... if new implementors of said specs need to read less. Or dropped if not needed? If you need the family, use the full famiy, not MicroXML. > > > >> >> Not sure I can word this accurately. >> Something like... >> Oh, I've got to use XML. >> Oh, that's not too bad, only xxx words in the spec. >> ... later. >> Oh sh...ugar, another gotcha. >> Oh, another spec I've got to learn (xlink, namespaces .....) >> Why didn't they get it right first time!! >> >> The corner cases and nasties and workarounds and ... make it plain >> hard in todays dumbed down world? >> >> XML for dummies isn't a solution IMHO. >> > > I don't follow this. You only need to learn the complexities of "Full XML" IFF the vocabulary you are using uses them. > Otherwise you don't need to learn them. > Thus the case you describe would either require full XML not. Noone is making people learn things like xlink or even namespaces if the vocabulary they use doesn't require it. something like feature creep? An organisation deems it necessary to use XML. The DL of the organisation finds out about CDATA sections, Namespaces etc and thinks Oh, I'll play with them. Before you know it the whole engineering department has to learn the entire XML stack! If our nominal engineer can get her / his head round MicroXML in an hour, I think this group will have produced something worthwhile. regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2012 12:50:06 UTC