RE: 7. Are CDATA sections allowed?

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