Re: New Editor's Draft released

In response to the comments below and other discussion, I have released
the 2012-09-08 draft today.  The only substantive change is moving the
discouraged characters into the syntax, making them invalid characters.

James Fuller scripsit:

> the section starting with;
>
> 'The creation of an XML subset can be justified even though the costs
> of XML complexity have already been paid, for at least the following
> reasons:'
>
> …. along with associated bullet points.
>
> I would consider removing … its useful material for the wiki IMHO.

I'm going to keep this unless there is strong consensus otherwise.  It's
the "why" of MicroXML, which for many people will be the most important
thing to know first.  I did remove the bullet point referring to HTML;
there are now no references to HTML except in the goals.

> IMO we could drop some of the goals and/or combine a few;
>
> * combine 1) and 2)

The syntax subsetting is separate from the "substantial consistency" of
the data model.

> * combine 3) and 9)

Simplicity is not the same as self-containedness.

> * 4), 5) and 7) could be dropped (they seem like a logical consequence
> of other goals)

Please explain in more detail.  In particular, goal 4 tells everyone
what we are *not* trying to do, namely invade their turf.

> consider creating section 1.2 Terminology, at minimum to move RFC 2119
> boilerplate into for now

A section containing one sentence seems like overkill.

> ' it matches the production labeled "[1] document"'
>
> consider adding anchor links (throughout) …. though I see there
> are no internal links just yet … so probably stating the bleeding
> obvious

Eventually there will be, but I want to do most of the substantive
editing first before I add decorations, especially considering that I am
using the HTML vocabulary directly.

> consider dropping [5. Notation] and just reference somewhere

There are a lot of BNF variants, and we need to explain ours, unless you
want to reference the XML spec, which I think would be a Bad Idea.

-- 
John Cowan  cowan@ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
Big as a house, much bigger than a house, it looked to [Sam], a grey-clad
moving hill.  Fear and wonder, maybe, enlarged him in the hobbit's eyes,
but the Mumak of Harad was indeed a beast of vast bulk, and the like of him
does not walk now in Middle-earth; his kin that live still in latter days are
but memories of his girth and his majesty.  --"Of Herbs and Stewed Rabbit"

Received on Sunday, 9 September 2012 01:54:15 UTC