- From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 20:28:09 -0500
- To: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Cc: Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>, "public-microxml (public-microxml@w3.org)" <public-microxml@w3.org>
On Sun, 2012-11-18 at 05:49 +0700, James Clark wrote: > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 5:05 AM, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote: > Since MicroXML is/was aimed at Web usage, I think (b) the better choice, > > > > I agree that representing HTML-based markup languages is an important use > case for MicroXML. However, it seems a bit of a leap to argue for a > particular interpretation for all MicroXML documents based on one HTML > example. There are HTML examples that go the other way, such as: > > <img src=socks.jpeg/> agree 100%, didn't mean to imply HTML was the only use case. But it's an important one, as is that of Web designers using µXML for other reasons. > *or* build-in to the parser a list of empty HTML elements and use (a) > > for those and (b) for the rest. > > > I don't like this at all. Neither, I admit, do I, but it seemed worth suggesting. > If <img src=socks.jpg/> means <img > src="socks.jpg"/>, then <script src=socks.js/> should mean <script > src="socks.js"/>. I think that's a reasonable principle. > Overall, (a) seems the best choice to me. I'm not wedded to either. But does <a href=/g/socks/> end up as <a href="/g/socks"/> ? That would actually work in most cases (becasue of http redirection) so maybe it'll be OK anyway, although it's not so good with rdf or namespace URIs! -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
Received on Sunday, 18 November 2012 01:29:12 UTC