- From: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 08:25:22 -0700
- To: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>, Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>, "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
---------- The micro way should be to use hypermedia constructs that are common, such as @href, @src, @type, @rel, @hreflang etc. But we've just jumped out of the plane and are now looking for the parachute rip cord. --------- I am confused here ... to my understanding both XML and MicroXML attempt to NOT define vocabularies (unlike HTML). XML does a poor job by defininging *some* (like xml:base) but largely because it had to deal with external entities and (like xml:id) because it had to be compatible with DTD's. But to my mind this was not about defining a vocabulary. With MicroXML we are eliminating both DTD's and external entities and all requirements of a reserved vocabulary. IMHO things like @href etc belong at a layer above, not baked into, MicroXML. I know you want to have a standardized linking format but I feel this is the wrong layer to define it in. MicroXML is *not* the equivilent of HTML ... its a layer below (whereas HTML mixes two layers into one - which has its uses but isnt what XML or MicroXML is about IMHO). -David ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lee Lead Engineer MarkLogic Corporation dlee@marklogic.com Phone: +1 812-482-5224 Cell: +1 812-630-7622 www.marklogic.com
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2012 15:25:56 UTC