- From: Rushforth, Peter <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 15:40:16 +0000
- To: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>, Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>, "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
Hi David, > 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. Virtually everything has to deal with links between resources. > 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. Eliminating DTDs just eliminates a way of reserving your vocabulary, and a syntax to go with it; it doesn't eliminate the need to reserve your vocabulary. > > IMHO things like @href etc belong at a layer above, not baked > into, MicroXML. David, I honestly don't understand what you mean by layers. I would like to see a diagram and text explaining layers. > 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). HTML and XML to me are in the same 'layer'. HTML is a completely reserved vocabulary, while XML reserves very little. MicroXML even less, but my view is that it needs both a way to express (typed) links, _and_ it needs to express what the preferred mechanism users of it will use to reserve / define their vocabulary. If simplicity is a goal, you have to think about what too simple is, because too simple leads to unintended complexity, or so I'm told. Peter
Received on Wednesday, 5 September 2012 15:40:48 UTC