xml-dev - RE: Feeling good about SML

["Don Park" <donpark@docuverse.com>]

>I think there's a step or two before even that.  We've been 
>talking about "simplifying" XML without sharing an operational
>definition of "simpler."

Fair enough except I believe a set of requirements will serve
the same purpose.  Without further ado, here is the first rough
cut:

1. SML shall be easier to learn than XML

Ideally, one should be able to learn the ins and outs of SML
COMPLETELY within 30 minutes.  Amount of time spent is not
important but it can be used to indirectly measure the level of
required attention span, mental model complexity, amount of
details one must remember, etc.

2. SML shall be easier to use than XML

[TBD: this needs to be broken up more]

3. SML shall be easier to implement than XML

It should be possible for an average engineer to write a fully
compliant SML parser within a week.  While there are many XML
parsers out there now, level of compliance is questionable and
amount of time and effort to implement them is greater than
originally intended for XML.

4. SML shall be compatible with XML

[TBD]

5. SML shall promote small and fast applications

[TBD: needs rewording]

6. SML shall have zero optional features.

[TBD]

Comments and suggestions are welcome,

Don Park    -   mailto:donpark@docuverse.com
Docuverse   -   http://www.docuverse.com


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)