- From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:59:16 -0500
- To: "Grosso, Paul" <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Cc: public-xml-core-wg@w3.org
Grosso, Paul scripsit: > But at least at first, I would expect the discussion, use cases, and > initial design would occur in the TF, and our WG should contribute to > that effort (optionally as individuals, but also as a WG). So I > wouldn't expect the WG to do any work on something like MicroXML > until after the TF has run its course. > > You replied in this affirmative to my first question, but then > there was no more email. Hmm, my reply must have gotten lost, but it was to the effect that I doubted the TF would do any work on MicroXML whatever. And now that I've been to a bunch more meetings, my doubts are strongly reinforced. I just don't see MicroXML development as in the cards for the TF; at most, a recommendation that something like MicroXML be developed (and even that, I think, is somewhat unlikely). Which means that if it's to be done at the W3C at all (as I hope it will be), it will pretty much have to be done here. It's certainly within our general remit, and not within any other WG's remit as far as I can see. Norm as chair may have other opinions. Norm? For interested WG members, the following posts are relevant: http://blog.jclark.com/2010/12/microxml.html http://blog.jclark.com/2010/12/more-on-microxml.html http://www.stephengreenxml.org.uk (MicroXSD) http://recycledknowledge.blogspot.com/2010/12/microrng.html http://recycledknowledge.blogspot.com/2011/01/microxml-and-json.html http://recycledknowledge.blogspot.com/2011/01/microlark-parser.html -- By Elbereth and Luthien the Fair, you shall cowan@ccil.org have neither the Ring nor me! --Frodo http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Received on Monday, 24 January 2011 18:59:44 UTC