- From: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 21:28:18 -0700
- To: Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net>, "public-microxml@w3.org" <public-microxml@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <EB42045A1F00224E93B82E949EC6675E16B0B5C079@EXCHG-BE.marklogic.com>
Uche sayith .. I think you've really got hold of the wrong idea here. See above re: the actual ugliness in question. ----------- I know I have something wrong, thanks for the comments. What led me down this path was John's comment when I asked if you want to author HTML5 why not just author HTML5 and his answer (paraphrased) was "Its Ugly" But what your saying is that a MicroXML document can be an HTML5 document "as is". So its NOT ugly. Or is it ? This confuses me. What is the difference between 2 documents that are byte equal and one is HTML5 and one Is MicroXML ... I don't see a difference ... if they are byte equal ... thus where is the "Ugly" part coming in if you are "Authoring HTML5" and simply choose to use the simple part ? Why is MicroXML relevant to this ? If I say to myself "I am editing a MicroXML document" that is easy and simple But if I say to myself " I am editing an HTML5 document" that is ugly and complicated. WTF ? Its probably all semantics ... but I admit I am getting lost here. How does MicroXML help/intersect/apply whatsoever to the HTML5 case ? If you choose to use the subset of HTML5 that happens also to conform to MicroXML then its entirely a mind game of saying you are createing a MicroXML or a HTML5 document ?? I *know* I am missing something but this "HTML5" meme comes up a lot on this list and I just don't get what it has to do with MicroXML ... Except perhaps that a subset of MicroXML is also a subset of HTMl5 ... But is that relevant to anything ? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lee Lead Engineer MarkLogic Corporation dlee@marklogic.com Phone: +1 812-482-5223 Cell: +1 812-630-7622 www.marklogic.com<http://www.marklogic.com/>
Received on Saturday, 15 September 2012 04:28:43 UTC